Talk:George Galloway

Archive

Archive: 1 2

Should long American Spectator/Wayback Machine be clipped?

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

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

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

Flawed and Inadequate "Early and personal life" section

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

Corruption allegations need to be removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAB

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Brother section unnecessarily long?

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

Scottish/British

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

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

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

Intro

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

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

Whole thing now much too long

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rrose Selavy

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

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

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

Anti-war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Video courtesy of MEMRI TV, July 31, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Mark Thomas"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intro Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Less - than - flattering photographs DO NOT constitute vandalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uday Hussein

An "alleged" rapist and murderer?

You people have got to be kidding me!?

71.125.240.212 19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

References/links

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

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

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

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

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

Voting Record and Prevention of Terrorism Bill

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

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

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

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

Anomalously and mother's extraction

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

Israel-Hezbollah Conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appropriateness of "Al Qaeda Praises Him" Section?

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

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

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

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

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

The section is not encyclopediac:

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

rewinn 21:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dundee

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

Anti-war activist categorisation

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

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

Sir, I salute your courage, your indefatigability

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

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

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

Guy Hatton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Sandy Dancer"

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

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

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

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

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

Two things, pal:

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

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

POV in front loading

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

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

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

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

Oona King incident

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iraq salutation and Saddam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"MattLewis"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverts by Viewfinder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark, we salute your courage, your indefatigability!

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

Comments on a possible attack on Blair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caviar etc. "allegations" unidentified and unsourced

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

PAGE REDIRECTING???

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

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

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

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

talkSPORT

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

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

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

Please do not cut out content

You cannot delete valid contributions just because the title says film and richard and judy isnt a film, all you have to do is change the title, sub it, or discuss it. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Bitter Oona king is not credible source

I mean she lost the election, she will say anything, she is know to say anything, She said also it was because she was a woman? Pakistani people who voted her out had a female leader many times, She said it is because she was Jewish, well they didnt seem to have a problem with it when she got voted in, so why now? Doesnt make sense, the same community that elected her, unelected her. Her statements are an extrem sources, she is not NPOV, no way and i will remove her. She is a sore loser, and she became Jewish when it could help her, last time i checked she was a black woman, and was using that to win. No she is jewish, typical, Why doesnt she say it was because she was black that she lost? it is a serious accusation and the source cannot be trusted. and hence this is slander because if he said something like that it would be very serious.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, she is black and Jewish, who says you cannot be both? As the daughter of a Jewish mother she certainly can be considered Jewish. But most of all, it sounds like all that is something you want to be asking King, not Wikipedia. --Shamir1 05:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not add slander to this article, regardless of what she is she has no right to make slanderious remarks it is a violation of policy on this page, he is a living person and her conspiracy theories are not allowed. The point has nothing to do with her faith but to do with her politics of accusing people of racism, and using the fact that she is black, a woman and jewish when she wants. Slander and accusations without proof from extrem sources is not allowed WP:Sources--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reader decide from reliable sources, we dont add every bit of slander on somebody just because somebody said it. It is he said she said and Slander and libel and violates the above. AND DO NOT remove my tags of NPOV--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not slander and libel (I encourage you to actually read it), it is a quotation and it is from a reliable source. We are not necessarily saying it happened, but saying that she said it did. Again, please keep your opinion about her out, it is unneeded. (Again, by calling herself black that does NOT mean she does not consider herself Jewish, so please tone it down and if you have to make such a remark, keep it accurate. --Shamir1 01:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your NPOv is not welcomed and the smear campaign will be reverted, please stop your campaign of slanderous sources against a living person. Stop violating wikipolicy. Her statements are from a biased sourced and she is not a relible source as she has an extrem opinion without fact, she also is without proof and this is not a gossipedia.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, she is an entirely credible source for HER OWN OPINION, I suggest you read wikipolicies before repeating your laughable POV edits.Wnjr 14:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

B4 you start using ridiculous read the disclamier at the top of this page, her personal opinion against her opposition party without evidence in a pro-Israel publication is not a Neutral source. It is slander and gossip. he said she said is not a valid argument for inclusion in wiki, do not add back this oonna king opinion, go and add it to her page.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not use abstract statements like "read policy" no which policy, let me give you a policy to read:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. King is a conflict of interest she is a single source on a serious accusation. She is not reliable, against her former political opponent, the paper she is talking to is not Neutral in this case, it reports one voice for one people.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 15:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A more reliable source for the aligations, the beeb. [5] Hope that helps. Hypnosadist 15:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay a better source but still Conflict of interest, rumor, She is the source, she is the angry failed opponent, it is still slander and a wild and horrid accusation against a living person. it is still a logistical agrument of he said she said. there is no evidence other than her opinion. She also said it was because she "was a woman," she has very little credit for such an accusation. all from a better source. let me go outside wiki, do you know Galloway could sue for slander? it is one thing when king is speaking to say this in the news, but this is his bio that she is trying to smear--serious. or can we list every he said she said "galloway is an bad person" "galloway stole from me in the 80's", "galloway doesnt listen to people" we cannot do this.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I watched this contest live and it was bitchy and slanderous well before the result, this is not just sour grapes. This was a dirty campain from both sides and this should be mentioned here, including that both sides claimed the others accusations of anti-sematism/islamophobia were a smoke screen for lack of policies. This is also the first election i can remember were both sides played the race card. One final point is we should list notable "galloway is an bad person" from notable people, and also contextualise that by talking about how dirty the campain was all round.Hypnosadist 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you agree it was dirty then create a page just for the campaign, the issue is this is his bio. that is the issue. And do you know how serious that statment is. Everyone was throwing low blows and we know that politicians dont care for how honest things are. She needed Jewish symathy, so she turned to her Jewishness. When she needs the Black vote she puts on the red, yellow and black colors and goes to carnival. this is politics. Adding it here gives weight to a dirty war and again it is a very dirty accusation which if true would be very serious. its like saying "dont vote for her because she is black". But i think he might have said "dont vote for her because she is pro-ISrael and Pro-War" now that is a different debate but clearly the more sensational statement is to use her blood connection to a holocaust people to gain tears for her cause.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Another beeb page with the infamous "Mr Galloway denied this - saying that he had been concerned over the deaths of many people in Iraq with blacker faces than hers." statement. [6] This was one of the most racist election campains in british political history, and needs to be noted in wikipedia. Hypnosadist 15:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

that is another issue not releated to the above, i am only talking about him telling people not to vote for her, if you want you can add that one, but not King say so. Racist in the history of the mother of Western racism, i think you are going to far. Have you ever heard of David Lamie he is racist against his own people and put there to do just that.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this person is a credible source. Please don't use claims as "sore loser" to try to justify posts, it doesn't look good. Also obviously the allegations are that he's an antisemitic person. Changing that, adding senseless tags and trying to present one POV of the person is not right. Amoruso 19:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What isnt right is you coming here deleting valid tags for an on going debate and reverting edits of 3 editos to suit your POV against someone who you desperatly want to add to your anti-S list. Use the talk page for controversial edits not the Bio of a living person.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"restoring all texts. " show the level of unilaterial unwillingness to debate and a serious issue with protocol and violates the rights of editos on this page who have made valid points which u wipe out ALL without any need for a debate. It will not work here, we use reason and policy not political bias in peoples bios.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalising peoples work

This is a message for the above editor who refuses to resolve disputes and keeps removing tags and removing citation request. Other editors have removed content which violates living persons bios, despite three editors doing this the editor returns and adds the disputed content back into the article. DO NOT ADD content which violates policy, or from an extream source, or is based upon rumors by a bitter rival politician. And do not weasle word any section to fit your NPOV.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not violate anything when it a sourced quotation. Libel is saying that it is true. What we are saying is true is the King/Labour claim. The paragraph has been edited correctly. Stop changing it to "anti-Zionism". It is not an allegation that he is an anti-zionist. Engage is an organization set up specifically to counter what they see as antisemitism lurking in the liberal world. One does not have to say the word "Jew" to be considered antisemitic, i encourage you to read the article, particularly new antisemitism. Galloway expresses a classic allegation of Jewish conspiracy, and Jewish control over the government and media. He may not use the word "Jew" but the various sources as well as quotations from public officials proves their point and explains it clearly. --Shamir1 04:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If he doesnt use the word then dont add it, this is begining to become very childish reverting against three editos, removing tags, putting back bad sources, inablity to discuss. conspiracy isnt antisemitism, and it is a NPOV to bring your broad definitions to slander someone.I am not intrested in the silly article . r u intrested in this article an article about labelling people? i am intrested in G Galloway and following wiki policy.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Which sources are "bad"? What a ludicrous thing to say. It has nothing to do with "broad definitions", as the sources including Engage (organization) says it perfectly falls into the category of what is explained in New antisemitism#The left and antisemitism. Conspiracy has everything to do with antisemitism. Other sources and the allegers both state its connection to misrepresenting Jews, Jewish history and/or antisemitism. By using the word Zionist instead of Jew (as the sources state) does not make a difference, especially since that seems to be a classic and common ploy. If you are interested in slander then get your story straight. Slander would be us as Wikipedia presenting all those as fact. We are saying exactly who said what, that is not slander please research on your own time. And stop removing the sources and the claims. The claims are what make it an allegation. And it is not an allegation that he is an anti-zionist, nor do his words have much to do with actual zionism. Other edits have been blindly reverted, please stop. --Shamir1 23:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is you go and create some term and use it in every istance to apply to anyone critical of Israel, i am sorry new anti-s and this and that are not universally respected terms, they are political creations. You can go and add that content to the new anti-s section if it falls in line. but it doesnt fall inline to the bio of a living person. these r not facts there are words created to subdue all critics of Israeli interest. Where in any part of wikipedia do you see a section for racism but everysingle critic of Israel has a special section because you created these terms, to apply where ever and whenever. like if the entire world must b forced to look through this narrow prism of one small group.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected

The page has been fully protected. I urge all editors to resolve issues amicably here, before requesting unprotection. – riana_dzasta 08:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And if you protect the section you should do the right thing and take out the libelous content until the matter is ressolved as G Galloway is a living person. Do not protect the page with the disputed content in, the safest thing to do is protect it, without the "slander"--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's a pretty grevious violation of WP:BLP. May also be worth noting that Galloway is famously litiginous.FelixFelix ^talk 09:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the two previous comments. Fully protecting a biographical article on a living subject in a condition such as this (with large amounts of possibly libellous content in place) is the worst possible action. If it must be protected, I suggest that the controversial material should be removed first, per WP:BLP. Guy Hatton 09:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should not be left protected with possibly libellous content in it. e.g. the first para of the section currently says "Galloway has expressed praise for outspoken antisemitic and Holocaust-denying political figures" - clearly possibly libellous. Galloway has won libel cases in the courts. Rwendland 10:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have posted this to the admin, imagine the cheek, locking us out and leaving in the dirty content. And to comment on the above "expressed praise..." So is he guilty by association. So i cannot say "Mr Iran is doing good things with womens education?" i am exhausted with this minority POV becoming a world opinion. The entire world prism is via holocasut denying and antisemitic, and if not that then new antisemiti and everybody gets a little section added to their bio if they are critical of zionism. like if that is a worldview or if that is balanced.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 10:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion,... anything encyclopedic you would like to add? Are you contesting the reason with the National Union of Students who made that claim? --Shamir1 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this all you need out? The whole section seems to be potentially libelous. – riana_dzasta 11:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to this diff for now. Hope that helps. Leave me a message if you need anything else out. – riana_dzasta 11:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The version to restore is the safest one, THANK Que you for that, than to have full blown rumors and NPOV from minority interest to smear politicians who speak out. A quick look around wiki show the same large content being added by the same people to every and anyone who is critical of their interest, it is very incorrect. and not just a little content but on and on without care for balance. all over wiki this is the hottest debate. be brave and look around. I think the entire section should be cut until a balance can be gained--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree - I'll leave the section out for now, you guys can figure it out here.

Also, next time, whoever filed the request for protection - it would be helpful to give administrators a diff to revert to, instead of all this unpleasantness. Not everybody is following this debate avidly. – riana_dzasta 11:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

All statements are referenced and the source is stated, there is no way that can be considered libel in any way. Stop making false allegations. The fact that YOU don't like it or YOU don't agree with it is entirely irrelevant. HalaTruth, this is not about "everybody's" bio. The point is Mr. Galloway has not been critical of the concept of Zionism, he has made very classic antisemitic allegations but uses the word "Zionist" instead. The use of the word "Zionist" is now a classic way of making "politically correct" antisemitic remarks without using the word 'Jew'. This is clearly written out specifically in the Engage (organization) article, for which they say it relates to New antisemitism, or also New antisemitism#The left and anti-Zionism. He says the purpose of Israel is not a safe haven for Jews, but to guard certain "interests in the Arab world". He called the residents and citizens of Israel, "settlers". He said Zionists did not want to create a sanctuary for Jewish refugees, but actually wanted to harm them. He does not blame Arab governments for discriminating against Jews, he blames Israel. He did not correct a more well-known antisemitic theorist when he made an allegation linking the Jews to Nazis. He made claims regarding control over the media and government, an incredibly common claim made by neo-Nazis like David Lane. He says that that the country Israel represents the Jewish people, and not in a good way. These comments can be very suspicious to some, and perhaps not to others. That is why it is an allegation. But it is perhaps more suspicious when considering the European Union's categorization of antisemitism, all five may have the possibility to ring the alarm (but it only takes one). In other cases, it just seems entirely inappropriate to use such language. --Shamir1 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what you apparently believe, it's not enough just to have "sources": they also need to be credible and accurate. Yours are not; they're biased sources, driven by the agenda of demonizing critics of Israeli policy like Galloway. Not all the world believes that attacks on Zionism are anti-semitic (especially considering how many such critics, like Chomsky, Finkelstein, not to mention numerous Israelis like Uri Avnery) are Jewish. So please, enough already.

Not that Galloway doesn't have glaring faults, but that doesn't make him fair game for piling on him with virtual accusations of Naziism. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Who do you expect to criticize it? The Sierra Club? A women's rights organization? Come on, now. Engage (organization) is a source, and its duty fits in perfectly. So do the comments by others which are verifiable. You also seem to be wrapped up in your own POV. YOU disagree with the allegation. YOU don't like it. There is a strong difference between an attack on the concept of Zionism (a Jewish national liberation movement) and attacking "Zionist media control." By just saying the word "Zionism", that does NOT mean he is attacking the movement. The European Union has laid out guidelines of when criticism of Israel crosses the boundary into antisemitism. One of them is associating classic antisemitic allegations (that includes conspiracy, media/government control, domination) with Israel. Another includes associating them with Nazis. Another is also the right to self-determination for the Jewish state, not the "little settler state" as he demonizes it to be. He says the purpose of Israel was not and is not to guard the Jewish people from danger, but to guard malicious interests in the Arab world. The National Union of Students said he went too far by praising Nasrallah, and cited reasons. This has absolutely nothing to do with Chomsky (an anarchist), and leftists Finkelstein and Avnery. I dont CARE whether they are Jewish or not, all 3 of them come from open and free societies where different ideas are expressed and can promote their (even anti-government) interests. But this has nothing to do with them. --Shamir1 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the idea is to make a good encyclopedia article, for interested people to read. Plenty to criticise Galloway about (and praise him for too..)without smears.FelixFelix ^talk 19:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If he is "smered" we must say who and why.

What shamir wants like all editors with this POV is to make any critic of Israel the same as Anti-Jew. To do this wiki must marry anti-Jew to Anti-Israel. I would like Shamir to replace the word Israel with South Africa and then ask himeself if there is still a problem. Let me continue. "South African white citizens are settler in African lands" . U define the term to fit the people. U have such a narrow definition that if i said "jews own Hollywood" i am antisemitic. Jews were part of the slave trade. Israel is a neocolonial state. Jews control the central lobbying powers in America. Now if i said this about another group it isnt necessarly racism. White people control America. Isnt racist. So u control the definitions and point us to the definition you invented so you can dirty every single last critic of Israel, Where in wikipedia is Israel mentioned in Racism? Look at the list of antisemitic people. Look at the list of anti-Islamic people-empty. 2 sets of rules on wiki. Farrakhan a section, Jesse Jackson has a section, even tutu has a section...is he antisemitic 2. he is saying what galloway is saying. What about carter. look at his page. on and on with this POV, I am glad editor are standing up to this imbalance. And because it is imbalance u lose sympathy. how can such a minority POV be in everyones page, allegation of .... everywhere. then the club shows up jay and beitor and humus sap.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

By calling me "POV", you are incorrectly smearing me so practice what you preach. This is not "my" definition, I have provided the sources. This has nothing to do with Hollywood, Jesse Jackson, Tutu, or the rest of your claims, but it shows your reason for removing the edit. It seems that in actuality, Halaqah does not want the information because he doesnt like it, not because of Wikipedia policy... Per his words, I hope not to directly interact with Halaqah. --Shamir1 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Leave the conspiracy theory and wide definitions outside of peoples bios. Dont bring your politics here because u believe any critic of Zionism is some sort of exotic racism against Jewish poeple. All sourced like ADL, and Jewishtimes, and Israel today. thats the sources, did the sources say Galloway was racist to Jews?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to keep it short with you. There is a difference between an antisemitic act and an antisemite. Most organizations prefer to avoid the labels and actually criticize the act, remark, etc., but not always. --Shamir1 01:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So is criticism of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as antisemitic invalid because they use "elders of Zion" rather than Jews? Is this the "broad definition"? Some of you seem to be competing with the allegers rather than Wikipedia policy. --Shamir1 01:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well well do you see the pattern? Desmond Tutu is antisemitic, every single person on wiki that is critical of Israel is anti-S. Listen if i say X does it mean Y. Jamaicans are violent where Jamaicans = Black people, bad logic. Israel = Jews. racism = antizionism = anti-S = Galloway. a=b=c on the pg anti-zionism it is clear that many seperate the two. So these disputed terms are not the law. U cannot apply unclear POV terms to everyone who critics your innterest. and this is my issue i sincerely believe what you are doing is wrong. I dont know about any elders. But i dont think if i dont like Israel i am a racist. dont collapse racism and anti-zionism. Plus none of the sources (valid sources) say he is antisemitic. And going back to Tutu as a reference to the pattern of how many sources called him antisemitic, can you image that Desmond tutu. Now it is Galloway. u think u r helping u r hurting your cause, because b4 coming to wiki i would have just believed you. now i c, even Tutu the dove, is antisemtic. then i am anti-s. the word anti-s is used so much it has lost weight, dont u c. u use it so much, people are normalized to it. so keep painting everyone with this brush and let the real anti-s get nuetralized.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My little test anti-zionism = racism is a bias POV

Take out Elders of Zion and say African council. Now to say bad things about African Council does it mean African people? Take out Elders of Zion and say Republicans are tyrannts and evil, does it mean white poeple. It is Original research to draw lines and connections that are not direct. Because your view or take is not a Nuetral take. Nation of Islam is racist, is = to Elders of Zion are racist. None of the statements mean Islam is racist, or Black people are racist. It means Nation of Islam is racist. Galloway say Zionist, that is who he is attacking. If you see tea cups in clouds that is original research and cannot be added to a living persons bio. He is Anti-Zionist. Keep unbiased ref and leave it alone. Do not quote the ADL for heaven sake. Carter got called anti-S by half the sources you want to list. Jimmmy Carter, and Desomond Tutu. Desmond tutu, . if u want to see my problem go to racism talk page and look at the games played when i tried to add content about racism in Israel--is this right. 2 rules, 1 rule for slandering critics of israel and another rule for everyone else, the impossible threshold which no other content on wiki is held 2.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 02:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not your blog. Please stop. --Shamir1 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Either use this page to discuss this article or return to your POV forum, do not continue to add none useful information to this page while mature editors are trying to get a agreement. It you cannot contribute your are not forced to edit here, take a break and re think your position--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Need I repeat that I do not want to interact with you? I don't. If I would, I would have to (quite easily) debunk every ridiculous sentence. But I dont need to because it has nothing to do with Galloway. And I would like to remind you who Engage (organization) is. A group of British liberals who are NOT pro-Israel. They have praised pro-palestinian jewish organizations. Their goal is to eliminate the antisemitism lurking within their own left. You can read more here and this may answer some of your questions. I have given you other links regarding new antisemitism. --Shamir1 21:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you dont care to interact then move on to another page and make your contributions there, very simple, This is not your personal space this is a public forum. Some new antisemitism has no weight as that is a term "new" term for that page, this is G galloway, the rules regarding his bio have nothing to do with some created term over on another page. Unless he is anti-semitic by saying racist things about jews and you have proof of this racism then leave it alone. If he uses the term zionism, he means zionism not jews. Hence the name of the section. I have no questions that need answer and do not engage me in an Ad hominem argument deal with the facts as they realate to this page. Iask you to stop your personal engagemt if edit here is causing you stress, edit back on that new antisemitism page. Leave edit here for people who want to discuss this article.acording to your def to say anything bad against Israel is equal to racism against Jews, well Noam Chomsky is a jew so he is antisemitic, tutu is antisemitic, Many Jews oppose zionism are they new antisemitic as well? please review the wiki civil code, if you cannot abide by it walk away you have been warned before about your conduct.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice that ENgage is list as antisemitic--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, you have trouble understanding what they say. How dare you say what my "def" is? Who are you? I havent even talked about Chomsky, but you keep insisting about talking about everyone else in the world, how jews own hollywood, how they are responsible for slavery, how bad israel is... Yeah, please do read the wikipedia civil code. I never said anything bad about Israel is equivalent to racism. Never. You are only providing your opinion of why YOU dont think so. Please stop addressing me. I have no problem with talking to people who disagree over Wikipedia policy, but that is not your case anyway and you have gone too far. --Shamir1 21:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

HalaTruth, you're not arguing logically and informatively. You have a long pattern of wild accusations on talk pages concerning Jews. I recommend you read the civil code as well as NPOV and the anti-Semitism article. --GHcool 22:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Has the choir arrived? I can see a list of your contributions and your patterns of POV pushing deal with this page. Yes u did, why are we even discussing new antisemitim then, what has it got to do with this article. Galloway is not antisemitic, do not think of adding it to the weasle word of this page. That is the end of the debate. Ghcool dont you have any thing to add about this section or will you violate wiki civil code and carry on an Ad Hominem argument, or sweeping check book generaliations "u are illogical", "u r not making sense" bad argument techniques. clearly from you user page i can see you are having a conflict of interest like the above editor. Please find one article i have added where i slander Jewish culture, history or religion. Jew doesnt = Zionism, just like Terrorist doesnt = Muslim. p.s how do you know i am not an Ethiopian jew tired of being oppressed? --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to come up with a new non-encyclopedic excuse for not including the material? Please, i dont think you realize that i dont care about chomsky, i dont care whether or not ur an ethiopian jew, i dont care how many jews oppose israel, i dont care what you think about galloway, i dont care what you think about me... I care about the inclusion of criticism of Galloways's criticism of Israel, and how it may fall into the category of a phenomenon that several academics and the European Union call the new antisemitism of the left. It may not be pretty but no politician is. Attempting to convince how including it is bad for my "cause" and generates less sympathy does not ring well. --Shamir1 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

HalaTruth asked me "why are we even discussing new antisemitim [sic] then?" The answer is because HalaTruth brought up the topic, not me and not Shamir1. I am more than happy not to discuss this topic since pretty much everything that could be said about new anti-Semitism can be read in the new anti-Semitism article. There is no need for us to lecture HalaTruth about the topic and certainly no need for him to lecture us about it. --GHcool 00:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Very true. In specific, it is about Galloway's words, and the criticism of it. --Shamir1 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Very disturbing that the extreme anti-semitism of this person has been whitewashed so thoroughly. Also very peculiar that the version was reverted by the person who protected the page, that's quite disturbing. Amoruso 04:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do all of you speak like you are one person. "Very disturbing". Galloway is not antisemitic, and some might think he is, some think he isnt. Good go and add it to every critic on Israel, Please do me one thing. When are well allowed to expose the disturbing oppression in Israel and not be antisemitic. Is it thus possible for anyone to oppose Israel without automatically oppose Jews. Because what is being said is under the broad def of anti-S, any oponent of Zionism is against Jewish people. correct?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough with your own point of view! Don't you get it? We're not interested in why you disagree with the allegation because you like galloway, that is not the point. What does the media being controlled by Jews or a Jewish-associated group have to do with "oppression"? Not everyone will agree with you. For your information, several critics of Israel have criticized appropriately, including Nick Cohen. They make no comment about Jews owning Hollywood, Jewish responsibility for the slave trade, "Jewish lobby", owning the media, dominating the government, about the Holocaust, mention of "Zionists" when in context of purely nothing to do with Zionism... it is very simple. As I said, the European Union lays it out quite nicely; I suggest you read it. And all this I have just written, has very little to do with the discussion we should be having. Your reasons are not wikipedic, but your own reasons because you just disagree. That, to say the least, is outright bias. --Shamir1 08:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting mediation

Any concerns anyone has before a file a mediation request? --Shamir1 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This would have been a nice thing to try before applying for mediation with me, without asking, on something to do with this page, Shamir1-as I found out when the mediationbot mailed my talk page. Also, trying WP:RFC, is a good step before applying for mediation. However, it should be noted that WP:BLP is non-negotiable and the (libelous)edits that you want to implement are a clear violation of this, and as such, 'mediation' with you over this is a waste of time. I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way, either.FelixFelix ^talk 07:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the issue i am overstating slander in a bio isnt allowed, rumors and accusations from single extream sources r not allowed. It is far better to be safe than sorry when dealing with people with the power to sue wiki, especially Galloway. We need to put our responsiblities as an editor before or political motivation for needing to smear people we dont like--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You two have no idea what slander is. And Felix-felix, it was not the mediation bot, it was I who sent the invitation. Is this not asking? Hmm... You two should know what slander is since you mention it. If we were to commit slander, we would not use quotations, we would not say who says what or why, we would not say "allege", we would just say it as if absolute fact. I have no interest in explaining what slander or libel is to people whose heads seem to be as thick as this table. I encourage you both though, learn what it is before making such a ridiculous allegation for your own POV. Felix-felix, if you do not want to mediate because of a "waste of time", be my guest, that is not my problem. I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way either. --Shamir1 08:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that little outburst, Shamir1-you are of course correct, you did indeed send that particularly formal request for mediation, although for what, I still have no idea, and you didn't discuss it here either. I for one haven't mentioned slander, I have mentioned the insertion of libeluous edits (and I'm sure I don't have to explain the diference to you Shamir1) and whether these are 'alleged' or not remain a violation of WP:BLP, not to mention WP:NOT. Mediation won't change that-so what's the point?FelixFelix ^talk 11:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeating criticisms that have been made of a public figure does not constitute libel where those criticisms are sourced. The guidelines merely state that "editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." Paul B 12:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution. Indeed.FelixFelix ^talk 13:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To quote from WP:ATT reliable sources; "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand".[7]. Furthermore,as per WP:SELFPUB; Some sources pose special difficulties:

• A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.
• A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review...For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable.

FelixFelix ^talk 13:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So what is your point about what specific sources? Be specific. Paul B 13:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Felix-felix, if you are indeed correct, what are you afraid of a mediator telling you? If the question is: Is it libel? Then that is a legitimate question to be dealt with a mediator. Nothing is wrong with that. As for sources, certainly you would not expect the Sierra Club or the Feminist Majority Foundation to submit a statement regarding George Galloway's comments, none of which are "extremist" or base it on "rumors", that is boloney. You may expect a liberal organization that monitors their own political left to do so, like Engage (organization). Or perhaps sourced statements by members of other groups, such as another MP or the National Union of Students. I am all for mediation. --Shamir1 01:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, both the NUS exec and Engage fail to meet the criteria above. WP:BLP is non-negotiable, so negotiation is, by definition, off the table. I don't think this is difficult to understand.FelixFelix ^talk 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing policies. We are not gathering the information from them, we are using THEIR statements from THEIR websites. That is legitimate, and there is a difference. The NUS is the largest student body organisation in the UK. Again, dont confuse policies. That has to do with checking information to make sure it is true. For example, Kirsten Powers's site would not be a source to use to confirm that Michelle Malkin said XYZ. However, Powers's site would confirm what Powers herself says about Malkin's comments. If we were to use a statement by Kirsten Powers as Kirsten Powers's opinion (and say it as such), that can be found and used on her self-published website since her words are direct from her own source. However, in regard to these sources, I do not see where you get all of those false assumptions about them. Galloway's comments are already confirmed. Besides that, their statement are not the only ones, and other criticisms exist, including the ones on the news site. It is not considered slander or libel--that is boloney. When Howard Dean called the Republican Party a "white Christian" party, 1) noting that is not slander or libel, 2) including Ken Mehlman's response is not slander or libel. Again, anything else that a mediator cannot help us out on? --Shamir1 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation isn't going to sort out violations of WP:BLP, full stop. If you don't think that the repeated insertions of smears from unreliable sources is a violation of WP:BLP, then why not put in a request for RfC? You might note that 4 other editors on this page (including an admin) thought that the section did violate WP:BLP, a fact that you may wish to reflect on.FelixFelix ^talk 10:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You might note that all 4 of those editors, except for maybe you, did not want to include it because of their own personal beliefs, because they did not agree with the criticism. This was most apparent and incredibly obvious with User:Halaqah. The criticism is sourced, forget Engage even. The "unreliable" boloney is complete and utter nonsense. (For one, a video and recording of Jones' interview with Galloway is available online. All others statements are also confirmed.) I dont see anything to fear in a mediator, and certainly this issue cannot continue unresolved. --Shamir1 21:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat that this dispute cannot remain unresolved. All steps have apparently been taken and the only chance left would be mediation. --Shamir1 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's resolve this in a mature and constructive way

And let's adhere to wiki policy as it applies to BLP's. For sake of discussion, here is the most recent state of the section in question:

Critics of Galloway have argued that his criticism of Israel steps over the line of legitimacy.

In an interview Galloway had with political conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Galloway blamed Israel for "[creating] conditions in the Arab countries and in some European countries to stampede Jewish people out of the countries that they had been living in for many hundreds of years and stampede them into the Zionist state.” Jones also said to him: "You mentioned the Zionists. The Zionists its now coming out even in major publications, well we already knew, actually early on funded Hitler. They said he's gonna be good, he's gonna persecute Jews and he likes our plan for Palestine. And I'm sorry folks, funding Hitler, helping Hitler kill Jews is not pro-Jew." Galloway replied that "The reality is that these people have used Jewish people...to create this little settler state on the Mediterranean, to act as an advance guard for their own interests in the Arab world...". Galloway told the Jewish News that he "[stands] by all those comments," and added "the people of Einstein and Epstein...[are] apparently represented by Sharon and Netanyahu.”[84]

Right off the bat, from the first sentence, we have POV and weasel words- there is no such thing as an illegitimate opinion, so this phrasing is out of line. Secondly, this is far too vague: What critics, specifically, have taken offense to Galloway's alleged views, and what have they themselves specifically said- not any editor's interpretation of their position, but in their own words?

Then we come to the main paragraph, which amounts to Galloway criticising Zionists- not Jews. Any argument made in the above discussions for a connection between criticising Zionism and being an anti-semite is purely speculative, especially in the context of an encyclopedia. I don't care how many scholars or academics argue for the connection, a person can unquestionably be skeptical of Zionism, or even Israeli policy as a whole, and still not be an anti-semite. One does not necessitate the other in all circumstances, and we cannot and should not jump to unfounded and unproven conclusions when we are trying to create an unbiased, factual reference regarding a living person. Lastly, the lengthy quote of Jones' is out of place here- Jones' opinion has nothing to do with Galloway, and any attempt to conflate the views of these two men would be POV and out of line. This whole section: Jones also said to him: "You mentioned the Zionists. The Zionists its now coming out even in major publications, well we already knew, actually early on funded Hitler. They said he's gonna be good, he's gonna persecute Jews and he likes our plan for Palestine. And I'm sorry folks, funding Hitler, helping Hitler kill Jews is not pro-Jew." needs to go, especially due to the weight of Jones' remarks. That about sums up the brunt of the material which would pretty much be uncool in any BLP. The rest can be contested for inclusion or deletion with a legit argument for either case.--Jackbirdsong 00:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Galloway used the word "Zionism" in context that had nothing to do with Zionism. Oona King's comments stay. The comment by the National Union of Students of the United Kingdom stays. These are all sourced. Galloway made another comment on Al Jazeera that was considered offensive. The criticism is sourced. The criticism of the interview with Galloway comes from Engage (organization), a leftist British organization that considers Galloway's remarks to cross the line.

Please do not mix up Wikipedia rules. Nothing is written without saying who said, where, and why. No one called Galloway an anti-semite for criticizing Israeli policy--that is something made up. At most, critics may argue that his comments were antisemitic, and the comments (such as the Al Jazeera one) are unrelated to Israeli policy. Sometimes it is even less direct. So you're "unfounded and unproven conclusions" that you speak of do not even exist. I havent seen a source that calls him such. They discuss the idea, explain, elaborate, but they do not put that label on him, whether right or wrong. And I dont need a lesson about criticism of Israel. I gave great examples of prominent, well-educated harsh critics of Israeli policy above, whose comments have never been criticized as inappropriate. You can find dozens of examples on Engage's website.

Another thing not to mix up are the rules regarding BLP. It did not violate BLP when writing about how Howard Dean called the Republican Party "a white Christian party." Nor did it violate BLP when Ken Mehlman rebutted him. Nor did it violate BLP when writing about the dispute over Mehlman's sexuality--all sourced.

No one called an "opinion" illegitimate (where are you getting this from?). His outspoken criticism was not considered legitimate/appropriate by some. --Shamir1 01:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have any more to add to what I've said above, essentially that the whole section is, IMO, an egregious violation of BLP (not to mention POV and unencyclopedic) and ought to go. As I've noted before, Galloway is famously litiginous.FelixFelix ^talk 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the section begins:

"Critics of Galloway have argued that his criticism of Israel steps over the line of legitimacy."

Since Galloway's criticism is obviously based upon his opinion, this would therefore be calling his opinion illegitimate, and is therefore blatantly POV. As well, this needs to be more specific, with names of critics and their own words, not a vague summary or editor's interpretation.

That is your interpretation. And the fact that critcism is based on an opinion--not an opinion, based on one--does not change the language he used. --Shamir1 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not my interpretation, it is Wiki policy.--Jackbirdsong 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello??? Are you reading the passage? It says the names of the critics and their own words. Plus the news sources which include them among other controversial statements. --Shamir1 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello? The opening line states: "Critics of Galloway have argued that his criticism of Israel steps over the line of legitimacy." "Critics of Galloway" is not specific. This is the opposite of specific. The names of these "critics" are not mentioned. Their exact words are not written here, but rather a general summary. This needs to be specific. This is wiki policy, period.--Jackbirdsong 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And to again address the lengthy quote attributed to Alex Jones- this has nothing to do with Galloway, and given the intense opinion displayed by Jones, is out of place and should not be included.

Perhaps, but there is nonethless criticism of the interview. --Shamir1 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And that criticism would belong in an article on Alex Jones, or the radio show- the criticism here needs to be specific to Galloway, once again per Wiki policy.--Jackbirdsong 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No such policy. If it is relevant, it is relevant. The criticism (which is very liberal-leftist) addresses both Jones and Galloway --Shamir1 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jones' lengthy criticism is not relevant to this article.--Jackbirdsong 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Shamir1- you say "Galloway used the word "Zionism" in context that had nothing to do with Zionism." - that is your interpretation, or POV, and should not be an automatic conclusion, as different people can read the same comments and come away with different interpretations.

No its not my interpretation its a fact, but even if it was that is besides the point. People have criticized his use of it. There is no point in hiding it because of your own POV (that you wrote above) or your own interpretation. --Shamir1 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no POV here- everything I have said pertains to the policy of this website, not my opinion.--Jackbirdsong 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been saying the same thing. You can read a big chunk of your own personal views above that do not pertain to the policy of this site. --Shamir1 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I am going out of my way to attempt to mediate what I realize is a potentially volatile situation, and I am not trying to take sides here- simply pointing out what doesn't belong in any BLP. If you have requested a formal mediation, all of this would come out in the wash eventually anyways. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 23:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If it were written without saying who said what and why, it could violate BLP. Like this, I know it does not. That is a false allegation. I have consistently stated that I am ready for mediation. --Shamir1 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Shamir, I think you are going to have a difficult time in any mediation process given your lack of willingness to compromise and, frankly, belligerent tone. That being said, if the following is the section in its entirety, then the opening does not make clear who said what and why:

"Critics of Galloway have argued that his criticism of Israel steps over the line of legitimacy.

In an interview Galloway had with political conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Galloway blamed Israel for "[creating] conditions in the Arab countries and in some European countries to stampede Jewish people out of the countries that they had been living in for many hundreds of years and stampede them into the Zionist state.” Jones also said to him: "You mentioned the Zionists. The Zionists its now coming out even in major publications, well we already knew, actually early on funded Hitler. They said he's gonna be good, he's gonna persecute Jews and he likes our plan for Palestine. And I'm sorry folks, funding Hitler, helping Hitler kill Jews is not pro-Jew." Galloway replied that "The reality is that these people have used Jewish people...to create this little settler state on the Mediterranean, to act as an advance guard for their own interests in the Arab world...". Galloway told the Jewish News that he "[stands] by all those comments," and added "the people of Einstein and Epstein...[are] apparently represented by Sharon and Netanyahu.”[84]"

Is this the whole section in question? If so, how is "Critics of Galloway have argued..." specific? The question of who exactly is criticising Galloway is important. We need specific names here.--Jackbirdsong 02:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making baseless accusations. Making a compromise is very different from deleting every sourced statement because a user doesnt like it. No user above ever requested that we take the statements and change the wording or syntax this way or that way. By far the majority, if not all, said that they did not agree with the accusation, and therefore it should not be included. As for the specific names, they are all there. All of them, plus the source included them as Galloway's controversial comments. But they are all there.

Oh and I'd let the mediator decide if anyone is being difficult. --Shamir1 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat the offer I have long been asking for and hope this time that people will actually be open to mediation. Should I file a request? --Shamir1 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So you consider the line "Critics of Galloway" specific? There are no names mentioned other than Galloway's and Jones'. Do you understand what I am saying here? The names of the critics of Galloway need to be mentioned, and their exact criticism in their words. Like it or not, this is wiki policy. There is no mention of the names of Galloway's critics as it pertains to this particular situation. This needs to be mentioned. The critics of these men- who are they, and what did they say?--Jackbirdsong 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I really hope the section was read carefully enough, as there are names. There are statements by David Hirsh, Engage [8]; Eric Moonman, a former Labour MP; Stan Urman, Director of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries;[9] Mark Gardner, Director of Communications at the Community Security Trust; Ben Novick, Director of Media Relations at BICOM.[10]. Not to mention the NUS and former Labour MP Oona King. --Shamir1 01:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked you earlier if this was the section in its entirety, and you did not indicate otherwise:

"Critics of Galloway have argued that his criticism of Israel steps over the line of legitimacy.

In an interview Galloway had with political conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Galloway blamed Israel for "[creating] conditions in the Arab countries and in some European countries to stampede Jewish people out of the countries that they had been living in for many hundreds of years and stampede them into the Zionist state.” Jones also said to him: "You mentioned the Zionists. The Zionists its now coming out even in major publications, well we already knew, actually early on funded Hitler. They said he's gonna be good, he's gonna persecute Jews and he likes our plan for Palestine. And I'm sorry folks, funding Hitler, helping Hitler kill Jews is not pro-Jew." Galloway replied that "The reality is that these people have used Jewish people...to create this little settler state on the Mediterranean, to act as an advance guard for their own interests in the Arab world...". Galloway told the Jewish News that he "[stands] by all those comments," and added "the people of Einstein and Epstein...[are] apparently represented by Sharon and Netanyahu.”[84]"

Is anything missing? Is this the whole section in question? If so, where are these individual critics names mentioned?--Jackbirdsong 03:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know at least they were mentioned on the article proper. Whether they were at some time removed, I don't know I can check, but it was not by me. I support re-editing the section anyway. --Shamir1 19:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I tried, but this seems to be travelling in circles- I think that at this point you should file a request for mediation. My advice to you Shamir1, if you care to hear it, would be to be open to other editor's ideas, and try not to react defensively if yours are questioned. Either way, good luck.--Jackbirdsong 23:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jackbirdsong. I am always open to other ideas as I have been saying, but I of course mean relevant ideas pertaining to Wikipedia policy. I felt (and still feel) that some users were attacking the sourced critics without giving a reason why their statement cannot be included or even simply be subject to further editing. User:Halaqah made his case very clear and began talking about "Jewish" ownership of Hollywood and other nonsense. Naturally, I did not appreciate this and I prefer for people to keep a cool head (although I must admit I often don't) and an open mind. Anyway, I have achieved more with you than any other user in this discussion, and for that I'm grateful. --Shamir1 07:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what I have so far. ==Criticism of anti-Israel rhetoric==

Critics of Galloway have argued that his criticism of Israel steps over the line of legitimacy. Galloway has expressed praise for Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah, a leader of a group that is outspokenly antisemitic and Holocaust-denying, which he was condemned for by the National Union of Students of the United Kingdom.

Oona King, the previous Labour MP for Bethnal Green, accused the Respect party of inciting activists to hurl anti-Semitic abuse at her. A Labour source told the Jerusalem Post that the Respect party was "drumming up a poisonous atmosphere" as the election campaign reached its peak last month. King told the British press that Respect party members instructed voters "not to vote for me because I am Jewish".

In an interview Galloway had with political conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Galloway blamed Israel for "[creating] conditions in the Arab countries and in some European countries to stampede Jewish people out of the countries that they had been living in for many hundreds of years and stampede them into the Zionist state.” Jones then alleged that the "Zionists" funded Hitler, to which Galloway replied that "The reality is that these people have used Jewish people...to create this little settler state on the Mediterranean, to act as an advance guard for their own interests in the Arab world...". According to Jones' website, Galloway described Israel as a "little Hitler state"; however, this is disputed. Engage stated: "The Jones interview also demonstrates the manner in which the far right is realising that it can drop the word, 'Jew', for the word, 'Zionist', and achieve the same buzz", and added that the two were articulating "the contemporary 'anti-Zionist' far left's supposedly pro-Jewish narrative" in order to avoid sounding explicitly antisemitic. Eric Moonman, former Labour MP and president of the Zionist Federation, characterized Galloway's comments as “manipulating many of the facts,” and warned "that one must never overestimate the power of [Galloway’s] words but we must not underestimate the way in which he can influence groups of people who are somewhat naive about the Middle East and Zionism. It’s depressing that the Jewish people and friends of Zionism are having to justify themselves and argue their corner.” Stan Urman, Director of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries, a group which represents the 856,000 of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, said: “How does one explain pogroms in 1912 and 1932 well before the establishment of the State of Israel? They were part of an orchestrated campaign by Arab governments to use their Jewish population as a weapon in their struggle against the creation of the State of Israel. His comments do not stand the test of historical fact.” Galloway told the Jewish News that he "[stands] by all those comments," and that Zionism has made "the people of Einstein and Epstein...apparently represented by Sharon and Netanyahu.”

Galloway was introduced as “a former member of the British Houses of Parliament” during a live interview with Qatari Al-Jazeera television, to which he responded: “I am still a member of parliament and was re-elected five times. On the last occasion I was re-elected despite all the efforts made by the British government, the Zionist movement and the newspapers and news media which are controlled by Zionism.” Mark Gardner, Director of Communications at the Community Security Trust, said, “This is despicable language for a Member of Parliament to use. Suggestions of Jewish media control can only give encouragement to anti-semites of every type". Ben Novick, Director of Media Relations at BICOM, dismissed Galloway’s allegations about "Zionist control" of the media, adding: “We hope that Al-Jazeera’s premonition of Galloway as a former MP will soon become a reality.”

I still think that you should file for RfC, but if you'd like I will review the above. Firstly, in the opening I still dislike the use of the word "Illegitimate"- it seems POV. Perhaps you could simply say something like "Galloway has been criticised for his views on Israel and its policy". Second, the line "Galloway has expressed praise for Hassan Nasrallah" needs specificity- what exactly did Galloway say to praise him, and in his own words? As for the Oona King stuff, the source that talks of "drumming up a poisonous atmosphere"- what does that mean? It is an election, after all, and drumming up a poisonous atmosphere is a seperate allegation from the one King makes. As well, King alleges RESPECT party members used her Jewishness against her- not Galloway. There is no direct quote or action attributed to Galloway specifically in any of the allegations, not to mention the fact that they are nothing more than one individuals allegation- sort of questionable. As for the Engage org. statement, this is pure POV and is the most unquestionably unnacceptable thing here. This connection between anti-zionism/Israel and anti-semitism is pure speculation, and cannot be proven, which makes it unencyclopedic and presumptuous. As for the rest, some is borderline and some is okay- you'll have to hash it out in mediation. All of that which I commented on above is wiki policy, and would pertain to any article on this site. Hope that is helpful, Shamir1, and I hope that you can seperate yourself from any emotion you may have towards Galloway, one way or another, and be objective about your material. Cheers, and good luck.--Jackbirdsong 07:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You have many good points. I nod my head with the first half of your response. As for the statement from Engage (which I remind you is a leftist organization that is harshly critical of Israeli policies), any and every statement from a human being is a point of view. I also remind you that the cited sentences or only excerpts, and you can read their research on the speculation. You can also see their website. I have no idea what "cannot be proven" means in this context? That it cannot be proven that Engage publishes this statement? That is what is encyclopedic. It further provides, their evidence and their reasons, not necessarily yours. No one says you have to agree with it. Their statement is in quotes and credit is given to them, no other such POV is involved; this is of course in contrast to a statement out quotes and stated as a fact. As for the quotation by Galloway regarding Nasrallah, it was stated at a July 22 demonstration in London, but a similar quotation can be found in an article he wrote for the Socialist Worker: "I glorify the Hizbollah national resistance movement, and I glorify the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah." [11] The letter that an NUS member sent to Galloway can be found on the NUS's official website. [12] --Shamir1 03:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's good that you have a direct quote from Galloway praising Nasrallah- that puts that one contention to rest. What I meant above when I said the speculation "cannot be proven" was this: Engage presumes that Galloway is making anti-semitic remarks, which is not provable because he did not specifically say anything about Jews- Zionism and Israel maybe, but nothing certainly anti-semitic. I understand your point that this is Engage's opinion, and therefore doesn't need to be proven per se, but that does not mean such an inflammatory allegation should just be included in an article on a living person. If we put every allegation by a website or blog about a subject onto wiki, there would be mounds of unsightly hate and much more opinion than fact. Perhaps the problem is the level of the allegation (anti-semitism), more so than the unprovability.--Jackbirdsong 07:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For starters, I don't even believe the chosen passage from the Engage content says anti-semitic. I know for a fact that none of them have labeled him such; most describe antisemitism or say that the remark was in some way anti-Jewish. According to the European Union, one does not have to use the word "Jew" to be considered antisemitic. Alan Dershowitz used the example of Amiri Baraka who popularized a myth that 4,000 Israelis were told not to stay home on 9/11.(Other comments here if interested) Another example is David Duke, a neo-Nazi and former member of the Ku Klux Klan, who probably uses the word Zionist as much as Galloway does. So Engage does not make any inflammatory allegation. Most of the content is describing and interpreting, and they certainly do not charge him with something inflammatory. Even if it were so, it would perhaps go under the same category as those who charge that Ken Mehlman is homosexual when he denies it. Not saying that being gay is a bad thing, but Mehlman denies it. I dont see any unsightly hate unless you can find it. --Shamir1 19:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

By insinuating that Galloway's remark is slyly or metaphorically anti-semitic (which is unquestionably what Engage is saying above) they are interpreting the man's comments to mean something that they may or may not. My point is this: Neither you, me, nor Engage really knows whether Galloway's criticism of Zionism is shorthand for criticism of Jews, or if Galloway simply disagrees with Zionism and/or Israeli policy. On wiki we have an obligation to "verifiability", and whether Galloway's comment means anything other than what is on the surface is not verifiable- it is speculation. In the least, this source is jumping to a major conclusion, and it is indeed an inflammatory one, and one which cannot be backed up by any verifiable information. This is more about wiki's policy of verifiability than anything else, and Engage's accusation is not verifiable. This is just one editor's input, and while I believe I am simply espousing wiki guidelines here, you should still file for mediation, if you haven't already, and get some other perspectives. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 22:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not a single inflammatory charge. Nor is their any Wikipedia policy that rules out speculation as you just noted. Can you pin point a part of Engage's comment that rules it out? I think some people here have jumped to conclusions too quickly. It seems that you at first assumed that Engage called him antisemitic, which is not true. Engage seems to be using his language as an example of what not to do. No "major" conclusion is essentially established. I truly do not see where you are getting this from. Have you read the article? What accusation is not verifiable? That is nonsense. There hardly even is an accusation. This is criticism, and that is notable if relevant, which it is. These are not members of the Conservative Party, these people are not capitalists or part of any particular anti-Galloway movement. They are liberals. --Shamir1 06:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This should be the last of it:

==Criticism of anti-Israel rhetoric==

Galloway has been criticised for his views on Israel, arguing it steps over the line of legitimacy. At a July 22, 2006 demonstration (and later in a Socialist Worker op-ed), Galloway glorified Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah and announced "Hezbollah has never been a terrorist organisation!"; to which the National Union of Students of the United Kingdom wrote to him (in two letters) that "Hassan Nasrallah is a racist holocaust denier. He has called for the killing of Jews...worldwide" and "Hezbollah is an organisation with a history of terrorism. It has been responsible for many terrorist atrocities including ... the largest case of antisemitic mass-murder since World War II.

In an interview Galloway had with political conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Galloway blamed Israel for creating "conditions in the Arab countries and in some European countries to stampede Jewish people ... into the Zionist state.” Jones then alleged that the "Zionists" funded Hitler, to which Galloway replied that Zionists used the Jewish people "to create this little settler state on the Mediterranean," whose purpose was "to act as an advance guard guard for their own interests in the Arab world..." According to Jones' website, Galloway described Israel as a "little Hitler state"; however, this is disputed. Engage included commentary on the interview that included: "Critically, however, this 21st century Protocols claims to be pro-Jewish; and has studiously replaced 'The Jews' with new bogeymen, 'The Zionists'," and that the interview is a "perversion of past and present Jewish Zionist life". Labour Liverpool Riverside MP Louise Ellman, who has been derided by Galloway as “Israel’s MP on Merseyside,” said: “I think this is just another demonstration of George Galloway’s total hostility towards Jewish national identity and self-determination.” Eric Moonman, former Labour MP and president of the Zionist Federation, characterized Galloway's comments as “manipulating many of the facts,” and warned "that one must never overestimate the power of [Galloway’s] words but we must not underestimate the way in which he can influence groups of people who are somewhat naive about the Middle East and Zionism. It’s depressing that the Jewish people and friends of Zionism are having to justify themselves and argue their corner.” Stan Urman, Director of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries, a group which represents the 856,000 of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, said: “How does one explain pogroms in 1912 and 1932 well before the establishment of the State of Israel? They were part of an orchestrated campaign by Arab governments to use their Jewish population as a weapon in their struggle against the creation of the State of Israel. His comments do not stand the test of historical fact.” Galloway told the Jewish News that he "[stands] by all those comments," and that Zionism "has turned the people of Einstein and Epstein into one apparently represented by Sharon and Netanyahu.”

In a series of speeches broadcasted on Arab television, Galloway described Jerusalem (and Baghdad) as being "raped" by "foreigners". The Academic Friends of Israel responded that "Jews have been in Jerusalem for three thousand years, so who’s the foreigner?"

Galloway was introduced as “a former member of the British Houses of Parliament” during a live interview with Qatari Al-Jazeera television, to which he responded: “I am still a member of parliament and was re-elected five times. On the last occasion I was re-elected despite all the efforts made by the British government, the Zionist movement and the newspapers and news media which are controlled by Zionism.” Mark Gardner, Director of Communications at the Community Security Trust, said, “This is despicable language for a Member of Parliament to use. Suggestions of Jewish media control can only give encouragement to anti-semites of every type". Ben Novick, Director of Media Relations at BICOM, dismissed Galloway’s allegations about "Zionist control" of the media, adding: “We hope that Al-Jazeera’s premonition of Galloway as a former MP will soon become a reality.”

I just saw a note about this at AN/I.. I had quick glance at the debate, and maybe because I am a complete outside reader at this stage, the first sentence in question did strike me as a bit odd.. I don't see what "legitimate" is trying to say - legitimate according to what? Is it trying to say that a citizen/MP has boundaries on what he can say and if he does go out of those, then it is a no-no? It is true that the society considers that elected officials have a "boundary" on what they can do - but it is only dependant on social pressure (ie Monica/Bill) and is very subjective. So in that respect, I can understand a "legitimacy" point arguing that he overstepped the duty given to him by the people (again, not the legal one, but the "social" one: to act in certain "boundaries") - but that's way too philosophical a point, really. Most readers wouldn't think that much and think that Galloway took a loudspeaker and shouted "death to Jews". Isn't there another word that can be used? On the second point about the lead, I suppose if there has been a lot of criticism by many groups/organizations, then the critics do not need to be enumerated. just my two cents for now - I will try to peruse more.. cheers! Baristarim 08:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I actually dont see it as a big deal. I thought it be odd without it, because the fact is that many of the sources, particularly Engage, encourages criticism, but within legitimate boundaries. It can be edited, removed, whatever. Thanks for your input. --Shamir1 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It was my feeling that the specific critics of Galloway be cited for the obvious reasons of subjectivity (Galloway's more vague remarks may be construed as offensive or not, and may mean different things to different people) and background for the reader. That being said, the section seems to be rather long now, so I suppose I'm a bit torn. Is there any way we could be specific and concise here at the same time?--Jackbirdsong 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make it as concise as I could. Nearly all quotes were selected by the news sources. I selected a sentence from Engage to round-up their commentary. The bulk ot the section is direct quotations anyway. They are a series of separate yet related incidents so I do not see what needs to be trimmed. I did make a little trim to his first quote, which is about one line's worth. I thought about removing the description of Ellman as "who has been derided by Galloway as 'Israel’s MP on Merseyside'", but I included it originally for the sake of NPOV. I also made sure others were as concise as possible. --Shamir1 00:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

he

he:ג'ורג' גולוויי. Danielbachmat 19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Request Unprotection?

After some consideration, as I seem to be the only editor here who is still remotely concerned about the validity of the section in question above, if nobody else steps up to the plate with any issues/problems soon then I will request un-protection for the page - it has been protected too long and the discussions have gone nowhere. You should feel free to then be your own judge of merit insofar as what you include in the article. I don't have the time to go into this any further, and any non-wikipedia edits tend to take care of themselves eventually, anyways. Good luck, and I hope this doesn't cause more trouble.--Jackbirdsong 04:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should strive to be to-the-point and direct. The text above seems verbose and indirect to me. Maybe the editor meant "over the line of legitimacy" in some other way, but the point appears to me to be: 'Some claim that Galloway's harsh criticism of Israel is really antisemitism.' If something else in meant by saying his speech is illegitimate, then please clear that up, and we can take the editorial discussion from there.

Assuming that in fact the point is that some claim that his harsh criticism is really antisemitism, then we should first follow Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words by making the sentence direct, ie. "X claims Galloway's harsh criticism of Israel is really antisemitism." But who says this? Does this group Engage say it? Does this former MP Eric Moonman say it? It seems to me surely that someone has said this, but Wikipedia:Verifiability would compel us to find a reliable source that reports that X made the charge. After we do that then we should evaluate whether X is a respected, upstanding person or group that knows what he or she or it is talking about, or whether X is just some unknown or little known person or group of no particular standing to be making such a charge. If I am wrong and no-one actually says this but everyone just beats around the bush about it then IMO no way should that be in the article.

Should a direct charge from a knowledgeable or respected or otherwise appropriate group or person be found, or even from a controversial but prominent one, then in my opinion that would be okay to put in the article in concise terms, but it would still have to pass muster at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and I'm not familiar enough with that to tell whether such a charge would. DanielM 00:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

After we do that then we should evaluate whether X is a respected, upstanding person or group that knows what he or she or it is talking about, or whether X is just some unknown or little known person or group of no particular standing to be making such a charge. Well said, the whole section, as it stands is defamatory, weasle-worded and non-notable, as I've said before. As it still stands, it's an egregious vio of [WP:BLP].FelixFelix ^talk 20:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Felix, no offense, but where were you in all of the above conversations I had with Shamir1? I waited so long for another editor to chime in (there was the discussion here and then at the admin. notice board) that I just gave up and requested unprotection. Now less can be done with admin intervention, other than another edit war. Let's just hope there's still a chance of brokering some sort of compromise. For the record, everything DanielM has laid out is on par with what I've been fighting for for weeks now. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 03:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Forget that, where was Felix when I requested mediation? (And please, enough false cries of BLP vios.)

DanielM, there is no such charge against Galloway as an antisemite, or at least none that I found. There have been, however, statements made by him that are considered (by some, cited) to be considerably unfriendly to Jews, rather than Israeli government policy. Each is noted above, with the link to each statement and where it comes from. I reiterate that none have labeled him the A word, as they are critical of his comments. There's nothing to beat around the bush about, they are very clear and give their reasons very clearly.

I have absolutely no clue where you get the idea that "X claims Galloway's harsh criticism of Israel is really antisemitism." I havent found this "X"; none of the sources I found use term, most carefully word their statements. And yes it says what Eric Moonman says or what anyone else says. Their words are copied verbatim. Once again, I also repeat that each group or individual is related to the issue at hand. This is the same reason that Greenpeace has something to say about a potential deforestation plan, or what a women's rights organization has to say about Don Imus' comments. Thats what it is, and it stands. Neither the National Union of Students nor the Community Security Trust, nor are the others not appropriate to comment. --Shamir1 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Shamir1, I'm not fully understanding the distinction between "unfriendly to Jews" and the "A word" as you say, but perhaps the direct lead-off sentence would then be "X claims Galloway's criticisms are unfriendly to Jews, rather than Israeli government policy" or "Some, such as X and Y, claim that Galloway's criticisms are unfriendly to Jews, rather than Israeli government policy." Separately, the part about Nasrallah seems to me to be a guilt-by-association argument or association fallacy. Like 'she was against the invasion of Iraq, which removed Saddam Hussein, therefore she was in favor of Saddam Hussein.' Or 'he is a thief, you are his friend, therefore you must be a thief.' Sorry, I'm not able to respond now to the other points you wrote. DanielM 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Shamir1, okay, I was going to come back and grant you that it is the cited critic (in this case NUSUK) who engages in the association fallacy but in fact it is not just the critic it is the editor (I am not really sure which editor, the proposed text is unsigned) in the second sentence, where he or she not only reports the NUSUK criticism but uses it as support for the argument that he or she first sets up and makes: "Galloway has expressed praise for Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah, a leader of a group that is outspokenly antisemitic and Holocaust-denying, which he was condemned for by the National Union of Students of the United Kingdom.[2][3]." To address one more, to say that Oona King "accused the Respect party of inciting activists to hurl anti-Semitic abuse at her" I think is a gross and POV extrapolation of her quote that "Respect drummed up a poisonous atmosphere." Clicking on the listed reference doesn't go anywhere when I try to check it but I think I read about it before and I surely don't recall that Respect activists were encouraged to hurl antisemitic abuse. Further, even if it were exactly and verifiably like that (which I'm almost certain it's not), I think it would need to be directly tied to Galloway before it could be used in the Wikipedia article. In all I think the proposed section leans heavily on implication and insinuation and anything but neutral characterization to try to achieve its unifying premise that Galloway makes statements unfriendly to Jews. As it is IMO it has no place in the article. DanielM 12:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC) PS: It may be that some charges of this nature can be slimmed down and made more direct, that the man really is a closet hater, and not simply an Arabophile and South Asianophile (remember his Pakistani activities) with particular sympathy for the Palestinians, and he clearly slips up somewhere with a slur or praise of the Holocaust or something like that. A really prominent person like Tony Blair or somebody could say Galloway made a rank antisemitic remark, or the Anti-Defamation League or similar prominent organization could criticize him in a press release or something. Those things might be appropriate for the article, I just think little of the proposed text above is.

I believe what Daniel is saying, or at least my take on it, is that the wording here needs to be less vague in some instances. In using the phrase "beyond legitimacy", or "crossed the line of legitimacy", or however else you want to use the word legitimate, we get a sense that Galloway is being accused of something more (possibly anti-semitism). After all, what exactly constitutes an "illegitimate" criticism of Israel and/or its policy? I think that the main focus as of right now should be on the wording we use, outside of direct quotes, which should be objective and free of insinuation, unintentional or not.--Jackbirdsong 01:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, I dont mind editing that sentence, I just thought it be a good clarification since some of the groups encourage criticism. I will say it again, the whole point is that is was NOT about Israeli government policy, that is the point, at least for most of them. Their argument is against his "glorification" of a man who has explicitly called for the death of all Jews. One might argue that it was taken the right or wrong way, but that is their argument. That is not a matter of policy. Inferring that Jews are "foreigners" in Jerusalem is not a matter of policy, neither is demonizing Israel as a settler state. To some, it sounds like Galloway suggests that they are not just as entitled to self-determination there. I can continue with his blaming on Israel for antisemitism rather than host governments, but I think you get the point. And so, these are concerns from some of the leaders of the Jewish and Zionist communities in Britain. Wording is not a problem and can be taken care of, the main point is that he has apparently offended many in the Jewish community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

(unindent)Actually, I would argue that, as you put it, "inferring that Jews are foreigners in Jerusalem"(he in fact never used the term "Jews" when he said that "Jerusalem" was being "raped" by foreigners, and this quote could just as easily be interpreted as a criticism of immigrant zionists, and not "Jews" in general) and calling Israel a "settler state" are precisely criticisms of the Israeli government. The manner with which Israel was founded, and the way it runs daily life in Jerusalem are matters of government policy, though religious conviction may be intertwined. If I criticized the way Washington DC is run (horrible crime, horrible politics) and criticized the way that the US stole its land (often times in malicious and deceitful ways) from the Native Americans, certainly those would be straightforward critiques of American policy, and would absolutely not be nearly as controversial. My point is that there should not be a double standard for Israel just because it happens to be a religious state. If the goal of the section in question is simply to point out that Galloway has offended members of the Jewish community, then that's one thing. But many of the critics go beyond stating that Galloway simply "said something that offended me and I believe is untrue", and much of the criticism assumes and/or implies things that may or may not be true insofar as Galloway's beliefs/outlook are concerned.--Jackbirdsong 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing with the wrong person. This is an argument you should be having with the critics, not me; I was just explaining what you seemed not to understand. No he did not use the word "Jews" but their guess is as good as yours (and immigrant Zionists are Jewish by the way, in the same way, so that makes no difference). How is "foreigners" government policy? If so, that is when it crosses the line as they suggest. He could have put it in a more professional way, but he used those terms, which were taken as very offensive. Saying it is "raped" is one thing, but "foreigners"? "Settler state" sounds more like colonization rather than refuge. Many of the Jews who settled in what became Israel were in fact settlers, but their descendants are not and the country is not a settler state any more than any county. Then, he blames Israel for the antisemitic actions of other governments. He says that "Hezbollah has never been a terrorist organization" (repeated a few times) (of course rather than just "Hezbollah is not a terrorist organisation). So then brings up the question for Galloway: How does the killing of Argentine Jews not count as terrorism? Again, it may not be your point, but it is theirs. The question is not whether you agree with their point; the question is: Did the NUS send that letter and what did it say? There is also a difference between criticizing Israel and supporting or "glorifying" Hezbollah.[13]

Now, you seem not to understand history so well in the way that you are comparing the foundings of America and Israel. It is one of the worst comparisons I have seen on Wikipedia, so there is no double standard involved (enough irrelevance, please). Galloway's comments went beyond simple criticism. You are also making a horrible comparison of your criticism and Galloway's. Most Jewish residents of Jerusalem are not immigrants by the way, so why should he call a historically Jewish city as being raped by foreigners (who are born there)? This is demonizing language, it is not "straightfoward critique", aside from the fact that he made no reference to immigrants. Don't make excuses for him, for the sake of WP policy. You can come up with any thing you want, bottom line: there is a lot of hostility between the Jewish community (who are typically liberal and socialist) and Galloway. They dont just spit out words, they give their reasons. Anyone can choose to argue against their reasons but that doesnt mean their reasons dont exist. --Shamir1 17:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's get down to brass tax here. Firstly, if you were to include, or allow the inclusion of, some rebuttals to the critics you cite, either by other sources or Galloway himself, it might balance things out more. Beyond that, for me the inescapable conclusion is that much of the material you have proposed is either 1)biased, as in the case of Oona King, which has obvious political motivations, or 2)a lot of disparate information that has been balled together to present an overall picture that is based entirely on opinion. It doesn't seem encyclopedic, nor ingenuous, for me to agree with the current state of this proposed section, and I'm not alone on this. Major changes are neede here, beyond just shifts in phrasing, though that may still require some work as well.--Jackbirdsong 06:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have searched long and hard, and I encourage you to as well, and I have not found any rebuttals. I did leave in a comment by Galloway about one of the MP's, for similar reasons. But there is no say in holding off sourced information if a rebuttal does not exist. 1) How is something "biased"? Certainly a source with an allegation would not be suitable to take information, but their statements it is most certianly the opposite. If I still have to give examples I will. What makes Greenpeace any more biased on environmental issues? As for the Oona King idea (which is not even included above), it is ENTIRELY 100% POV that it is based on political motivations. It may in fact not only be a legitimate POV, but a true one too, but that is up to the reader to interpret; concern here is whether it happened, and yes the context is important. 2) Statements, tensions, and criticisms are incredibly encyclopedic, as there is a criticism and/or controversy section on almost all large articles here on Wikipedia. So make a legitimate point, find a phrase that actually does not fit. No excuses, criticism and controversy sections are nothing new to Wikipedia. I am familiar with most of the rules here, I have not seen one that rules out this sourced material in which the author is cited. These are not only leaders of organizations, but a couple described the tensions between Galloway and other MP's. As well as the motion passed condemning him by the NUS. Also, I decided to do some of the dirty work for you. This is by Galloway's crew. Also keep in mind that the NUS is "not accusing [Galloway] of being antisemitic or being a Holocaust denier," but also contend that he clearly knew Hezbollah's history since apparently "knowing his comments may breach the 2000 Terrorism Act." --Shamir1 06:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Oona King issue, my point is that she has a political motive to dislike Galloway and potentially tarnish his name, whether her allegations are true or not is a separate issue. You have quite a few sources and the section is fairly long as it is, so it would be a nice step toward compromise if we excluded this one allegation (I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from here). Secondly, I never argued against the inclusion of controversy/criticism sections in general - just this one subsection inparticular. We have a lot of seperate sources pertaining to different issues (if Galloway criticizes Israel, why does that have anything to do with his praising Nasrallah? By placing these two issues back to back in the same section, it indirectly indicates that Galloway must be praising Nasrallah because Nasrallah dislikes Israel, which isn't necessarily the case.) By balling together these otherwise seperate issues it paints a picture that induces in the reader a certain POV, and this is ultimately my main contention, beyond source credibility etc.--Jackbirdsong 04:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments but I dont feel you have read each article. While criticizing Israel, he praised Nasrallah, which was considered by NUS motion to be inappropriate. (I attached a rebuttal by Galloway's student delegation.) These issues go entirely hand in hand. He made those comments while protesting against Israel, and includes it in his speech and written article. Source credibility (as I explained so many times), is not the issue. Each and every single one of Galloway's comments is confirmed, every single one. As for criticisms by other individuals and groups, they are either included on news sites or by the site of that organization proper. I will work to edit this passage once again to include these related issues, which is built no differently than any other criticism/controvery sub-section. --Shamir1 19:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

==Criticism of anti-Israel rhetoric==

Some of Galloway's specific comments regarding Israel have been criticized. At a July 22, 2006 demonstration (and later in a Socialist Worker op-ed), Galloway glorified Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah and announced "Hezbollah has never been a terrorist organisation!"; to which the National Union of Students of the United Kingdom passed a motion describing the history and actions of Hezbollah and Nasrallah and condemning Galloway for his praise of them. The NUS said Galloway is "clearly not ignorant of Hezbollah’s history of violence and the killing of innocents..." Student Respect stated in response that the NUS "not only failed to call for an immediate unconditional ceasefire (in the face of the majority of public opinion and the international community) but also refused to back the Stop the War Coalition's 23 September demonstration, and instead used the opportunity to condemn George Galloway MP, one of the leading figures in the anti-war movement." The NUS wrote two letters to Galloway, explaining their condemnation for his praise of Nasrallah who "has called for the killing of Jews...worldwide" and "Hezbollah is an organisation with a history of terrorism." The NUS also noted they are not "accusing [him] of being antisemitic or being a Holocaust denier. What we do condemn is your open support for a leader and an organisation that is antisemitic, terrorist and denies the holocaust."

In an interview Galloway had with political conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Galloway blamed Israel for creating "conditions in the Arab countries and in some European countries to stampede Jewish people ... into the Zionist state.” Jones then alleged that the "Zionists" funded Hitler, to which Galloway replied that Zionists used the Jewish people "to create this little settler state on the Mediterranean," whose purpose was "to act as an advance guard guard for their own interests in the Arab world..." Engage included commentary on the interview that included: "Critically, however, this 21st century Protocols claims to be pro-Jewish; and has studiously replaced 'The Jews' with new bogeymen, 'The Zionists'," and that the interview is a "perversion of past and present Jewish Zionist life". Labour Liverpool Riverside MP Louise Ellman, who has been derided by Galloway as “Israel’s MP on Merseyside,” said: “I think this is just another demonstration of George Galloway’s total hostility towards Jewish national identity and self-determination.” Eric Moonman, former Labour MP and president of the Zionist Federation, characterized Galloway's comments as “manipulating many of the facts,” and warned that "we must not underestimate the way in which he can influence groups of people who are somewhat naive about the Middle East and Zionism.” Stan Urman, Director of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries, a group which represents the 856,000 of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, said: “How does one explain pogroms in 1912 and 1932 well before the establishment of the State of Israel?... His comments do not stand the test of historical fact.” Galloway told the Jewish News that he "[stands] by all those comments," and that Zionism "has turned the people of Einstein and Epstein into one apparently represented by Sharon and Netanyahu.”

In a series of speeches broadcasted on Arab television, Galloway described Jerusalem (and Baghdad) as being "raped" by "foreigners". The Academic Friends of Israel responded that "Jews have been in Jerusalem for three thousand years, so who’s the foreigner?"

Galloway was introduced as “a former member of the British Houses of Parliament” during a live interview with Qatari Al-Jazeera television, to which he responded: “I am still a member of parliament and was re-elected five times. On the last occasion I was re-elected despite all the efforts made by the British government, the Zionist movement and the newspapers and news media which are controlled by Zionism.” Mark Gardner, Director of Communications at the Community Security Trust, said, “This is despicable language for a Member of Parliament to use. Suggestions of Jewish media control can only give encouragement to anti-semites of every type". Ben Novick, Director of Media Relations at BICOM, dismissed Galloway’s allegations about "Zionist control" of the media, adding: “We hope that Al-Jazeera’s premonition of Galloway as a former MP will soon become a reality.”

The editor of that latest iteration of the text (unsigned, above) has clearly addressed a lot of the criticism directed at previous versions. I think the text is much more defensible than it was. DanielM 00:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would actually agree - this version seems to have taken into account the most salient issues. Perhaps if nobody else feels there are further major issues, we can go ahead and splice it in. One last suggestion I would have pertains to the title - this is minor, but perhaps simply "Criticism of stance on Israel" or something along these lines would be better? Maybe somebody else has a more fitting title.--Jackbirdsong 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I kind of see what you are saying, although I think it would be better for the title to be about his words, and yes youre right it is very minor. I will re-add it per apparent consensus; if you think of a title that you see as better-fit feel free to edit or discuss it here. Thank you. --Shamir1 05:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Hi. What is the basis for the {{Blpdispute}} tag on this article? --Guinnog 17:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

see above discourse pertaining to the inclusion of a specific section, which has been removed pending discussion.--Jackbirdsong 21:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I took it down. Any material in the article which violates BLP should be removed rather than replacing the tag. --Guinnog 21:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Galloway's Catholicism

I added a reference to Galloway being from a Catholic background in the "Early and personal life" section since it seemed worth pointing out given that he attended a non-denominational school. This was quickly removed on the grounds that it is unreferenced, but the article refers to his Catholic background again in the "Political views and characteristics" [section], but is gain unreferenced. Galloway's Catholic background is something he refers to frequently, but using Google, I have not succeeded in confirming that he is, as it were, "cradle", "raised" or a "convert", hence in the original edit I used the more general term of "background". Philip Cross 18:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I removed it and would certainly do so again unless it can be reliably sourced and an argument made that it is relevant to the article. --Guinnog 18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

CARDRI

Anonymous editor User:86.130.131.32 asked for a reference for the statement that Galloway had been a founder member of CARDRI (the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq). I inserted a link to Hansard, the proceedings of the British parliament, for 14 February 1997, in which Galloway stated " In the 1970s when my colleagues and I were founding the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq, Conservative Members sat on sofas with Saddam Hussein trying to sell him guns. When CARDRI, of which I was a founder member, called for illegal, violent action, which some would describe as terrorist action to overthrow the Government of Saddam Hussein, there would have been nothing in the amendment to stop a Conservative Attorney-General taking action against us." The anon editor has twice deleted this reference, claiming that it "does not refer to CARDRI". This is completely untrue, and there is absolutely no justification for removing this link to a speech in theHouse of Commons. --RolandR 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The cited speech doesn't even mention the Iraqi Cultural Centre, the Iraqi Communist Party, or Galloway's criticism of America and Britain, as such I do not see how it can support these assertions in the article.

Wnjr 10:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A speech by Galloway is not proof. Provide proof please.

In addition please provide proof that Galloway protested outside Iraqi cultural centre.

If we accept Galloways word as proof then perhaps clear up his dates. The Tories selling arms relates to the 1980s —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.131.32 (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Galloway's statement is speculative, and it may well be true that Conservative MPs tried to sell Hussein weapons in the 1970s, since they certainly succeeded in 1981, but that does not concern us here, since the article does not claim that they did.

Wnjr 10:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence for the contested statements so per BLP i'm removing it. Hypnosadist 14:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence, so I am restoring the paragraph. RolandR 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not prevent quoting the subject of an artiucle. In fact, it states explicitly "Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs". What is not allowed is "any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue", unless this is reliably sourced. The information that various POV editors keep removing is not defamatory; quite the reverse, in fact. They are simply playing with BLP in order to remove favourable to Galloway. RolandR 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Galloways speech as a reference. then an article by Galloway. Carefully phrased as ever. "while people like me were demonstrating" People like him Roland? You cannot find a source besides Galloway himself. added by 86.130.131.32

There is no denying that Galloway opposed Saddam when others were selling him arms. Even one of Galloway's fiercest critics, David Aaronovitch, concedes "Galloway was once a genuine critic of Saddam's. In the mid-1980s Hansard records him delivering a ferocious assault on the Baath regime, and those in the West who traded with and encouraged it" [14]. It is silly to pretend that his claim is self-serving lies. RolandR 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"While people like me were fighting for the vote" While people like me were living in caves" See how it works. You cant place Galloway on the protests (or for that matter with CADRI) except with Georges own words. Galloway was against the Ba'ath until 1990 you are correct. But you cant back up your Cultural Centre and CADRI statements. added by 86.130.131.32

George Galloway's own statement that he was a founder, and took part in the protests -- all of which is backed up by my own memory, and that of others -- is good enough for me, and is a reliable source for Wikipedia. Or are you calling him a liar? RolandR 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont know whether hes lying. All we have is his opinion. No other proof.

We do know that Galloway lies though (if we believe Wikipedia) He denied in Ottawa last year writing his Mail On Sunday Opinion piece supporting the Musharraf coup. 86.130.131.32

Your assertion that Galloway is a liar is what is clearly not "proof." We have Galloway's "ferocious assault on the Baath regime" from the mid-1980s as acknowledged by one of his critics, besides his own word, which is clearly accurate in this case whether or not you believe his comment about the coup. If you think he's lying about this, look up the records from the house of commons in the 1980s and show that Galloway's critic is lying, or show that CADRI has another founder, or get photos of the protests outside the cultural center and make the argument that Galloway does not appear in them. If there is no published source contesting these claims of fact, it is not Wikipedia's job to cast aspersions on Galloway's reliability as a source for this information. csloat 22:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

George never claimed to be on the Demos outside the Cultural centre. He says "people like him were" 86.130.131.32 — The preceding comment was added 06:27, 17 May 2007.

Roland - It seems there is no evidence of Galloways participation in CARDRI. Indeed Ann Clywyd has no memory of his involvement. Have you found anything? Galloways words in Parliament were carefully chosen it seems. "People like me".86.130.131.32 15:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, the quoted speech in Parliament from Hanzard has Galloway saying, "when my colleagues and I were founding [CARDRI]..." That's an implicit linkage of himself to its formation, not "when people like me were founding..." or "when my colleagues were founding..." as you seem to be implying. Nick Cooper 15:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Nick. My mistake. Its about the Demos he so carefully phrased it.I dont think he was on them.People "like" him were. Can anyone find any evidence to back up Galloways speech.Lots of pieces mentioning Ann Clwyd and CARDRI. None for George. Ann has no recollection. Is George lying?86.130.131.32 17:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he is. It is not Wikipedia's job to speculate. Perhaps Ann Clwyd is lying. Perhaps she just forgot. It doesn't matter. If you have a published source calling him a liar, we can consider that; your speculation we cannot consider. csloat 23:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"There came a time, in the late 1970s, when the Iraqi Communist party realized the horrific mistake it had made in joining the Baath party's Revolutionary Command Council. The Communists in Baghdad, as I can testify from personal experience and interviews at the time, began to protest--too late--at the unbelievable cruelty of Saddam's purge of the army and the state: a prelude to his seizure of total power in a full-blown fascist coup. The consequence of this, in Britain, was the setting-up of a group named CARDRI: the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq. Many democratic socialists and liberals supported this organization, but there was no doubting that its letterhead and its active staff were Communist volunteers. And Galloway joined it."

- Unmitigated Galloway, Christopher Hitchens, The Weekly Standard, 2005-05-30 [15]

.

Mark Fischer: "Lastly, what about the charges against you that your political positions are dictated by your softness towards the Ba’athist regime, that you are a stooge of Saddam?"

George Galloway:"No one could credibly make that charge - I have been in anti-imperialist politics all my life. In relation to Iraq in particular, it is a particular ludicrous charge. I was a founder member of Cardri (the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq) in the 1970s. I was on the demonstrations outside the Iraqi embassy in London when British ministers were on the inside selling the Saddam regime guns and gas, so it’s not a credible allegation."

- Things can only get bitter..., Mark Fischer, Weekly Worker, 2003-02-20 [16]

.

"Indeed, [George Galloway] once described Saddam as a "bestial dictator" and has regularly raised the plight of the ordinary Iraqi people. A founder member of Cardri, the campaign against repression and for democratic rights in Iraq, Mr Galloway claimed, in 2000, that the-then 10-year-old UN trade embargo had killed one million Iraqi children."

- Why 'Gorgeous' George gets some admiring glances for his attacks, Michael Settle, The Herald (Glasgow), 2002-03-07, accessed via Newsbank archive, no freely available online version.

Wnjr 11:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no contemporary sources from before 1990 yet produced that show George Galloway involved in CARDRI. I also checked his contributions to Parliament and George Galloway's first comment about Iraq was in March 1990 after the hanging of Farzad Bazoft, when he condemned the hanging but called for a cautious measured response rather than confrontation of Saddam. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 12:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats the amazing thing. Nothing at all contemporary.86.130.131.32 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a possible solution to this. One of the Organisations that supported CARDRIs foundation was the Scottish TUC. Galloway may well be trying to create the impression that he was somehow involved with CARDI because of his STUC associations. As ever with Galloways words you have to be very careful as too the impression versus the facts. Look at the quote on Wikipedia about his wife taking Oil cash. "She denies taking money from Chalabi" Yes. But thats not the point George.21stCenturyBuoy 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a possible solution yes -- it is the policy on original research. We cite the actual sources and we leave the speculation about who is lying out of it completely. We now have three sources above stating very clearly that he was a founding member of CARDRI and not a single source suggesting otherwise. The rest of this speculation is totally irrelevant to the article. csloat 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless of course they all believed George Galloways commons speech. And that was their source. The founding members of CARDRI list must be available somewhere. If Georges name isn't on it hes lying. End of.86.130.131.32 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what is on the list or what you speculate about it -- unless you have a published source stating that he is lying, we simply can't use your speculation. csloat 18:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Galloway and Saudi Exiles

RolandR has removed a section which is important, referring to Galloways involvement with the Saudi "Opposition" in the mid 90s, who were Al Queda associated Jihadists. 86.130.131.32 —The preceding comment was added 18:08, 17 May 2007.

And rightly so. In addition to being poorly placed within the chronology of his Parliamentary career, your text uses selective reporting to tenuously link Galloway to people who were linked to Bin Laden, but at a time before the latter was perceived as a threat to the West. The following are particularly notable:

• The Liberal Party peer Eric Lubbock, 4th Baron Avebury co-ran the campaign to stop al-Massari's deportation with Galloway, yet this fact was omitted, and you have not added the information to his page.
• The second paragraph is worded to imply finanacial gain and/or inpropriety by Galloway, which he denies, a detail you did not include.
• The reference you used shows that Al-Fagih provided Bin Laden with a satellite phone, which he used from November 1996 onwards, two years before the first attacks on American targets attributed to Bin Laden. The draft Parliamentary report you cite to link Galloway with Al-Fagih is dated 11 March 1997, a mere four months after the supply of the satellite phone. In fact, the full documentation behind the draft report shows that it as the result of events in early-1996. In this context, there seems little relevence between the supply of the satellite phone and Galloway.

Taken as a whole, the section has little tangible merit, and I am therefore deleting it. Nick Cooper 19:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I note you do not question the truth of Galloways links to Al Massari and Al Fagih. And i would argue it exposes how Al Queda found and used their useful idiots. The second paragraph does not imply personal gain or impropriety. It implies that Galloway was prepared to lie about his financial relationship with AL Massari and Al Fagih

He told the Sunday Times that his only financial dealing with the Saudi Opposition had been to book a hall. When he gave evidence in Parliament he admitted to carrying envelopes containing cash and booking flights.

At no point have I argued that Galloway knew what these two were up to. I will argue that he was a useful asset to them. He may have thought that Bin Laden Al Massari et al were some form of anti imperialists as opposed to violent,anti semitic jihadists. His embarrassment at helping them should not warrant exclusion from his background.

86.130.131.32 —The preceding comment was added 20.33, 17 May 2007.

I've deleted it again. Please discuss here before reinserting it. --Guinnog 21:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Which bits contradict policy?

If I make it clear that Al Massari and Al Fagih subsequently turned out to be AL Queda associates would that ease your worries?

86.130.131.32 —The preceding comment was added 21.15, 17 May 2007.

No. If you wish to reinsert the information, you would need to make it conform to our ppolicies on biographies on living people, neutral point of view and original research. Please propose any changes here first. Thanks. --Guinnog 21:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok In the mid 1990s George Galloway worked with two Saudi Exiles,Mohammad Al Massari ans Saad Alfagih. Along with Lord Avebury he ran the "Al Massari Must Stay Campaign" to fight deportation attempts against the former.. Subsequently it transpired that Al Massari had set up a London office for Osama Bin Laden in 1994.

OK so far?

It's convenient how the links betwen Saad Al-fagih/MIRA and Al-Qaeda came to light around the same time as the big arms deal with the Saudi's (of which the enquiry was quashed for reasons of "national security"), I suspect any link drawn may be somewhat politically convenient,[17] though that wouldn't make it any less true. As far as I can see, Galloway had an interest in supporting Saudi dissidents which was entirely proper, quite the opposite of the image we have of him "fawning over arab dictators". Any subsequent link found with al-qaeda is of dubious relevance unless any impropriety has been uncovered, which I don't think it ever was.[18] If you have records sayign otherwise, I apologise. Cheers, Tompsci 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of interesting bits from the MOS interview...[19]

______________________________________ *snip*

BREAK ... MASS'ARI: He was sending out the reports with a cover letter from himself in the House of Commons envelopes ... there were hundreds may be thousands, definitely thousands. UK addresses were considerable. The international ones were not free. So he would give us the envelopes and we just put them in and sent them out. Paraphrase: The CDLR published three reports which were sent out in pre-paid envelopes. MASS'ARI: It was good for us because we saved lots of money. I don't think that the relationship, George made very much money ... unless this so called half Secretary or secretary does not exist. I don't think it was purely monetary. I think it was political benefit. Paraphrase: He said Commons business was always done in Galloway's name not Hawk's. Monaco's job was to concentrate on press liaison. MASS'ARI: George would concentrate on the Muslim community, and on the Parliament and politicians. He put a proposal (PR offer) through before the speaking tour, must be April or May.. There wasn't a formal contract, but yes, we agreed so there was a contract. We shook hands on it ... BREAK ... ______________________________________ *snip*

"TAPE SWITCHED OFF! Notes taken down by Clare Henderson with Mark Watts FAGIH: I don't have anything for him to do right now. He did very well helping the PR Campaign for Domenica. MOS: Is it true that you told a CDLR worker that Galloway was, at times, expensive to you? FAGIH: I am very money conscious. May be I said don't use George because it's too expensive. ______________________________________ *snip*

Incredible how just after the tape's switched off, something incriminating is supposedly said. If I've got this right, for Galloway to have profited materially, he would have had to be ripping off CDLR for half a secretary that didn't exist. Either way, I don't think there is anything substantial enough to warrant a whole section in the article, except for maybe saying that he supported the CDLR as effective opposition to the Saudi Royal family. -- Tompsci 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The interesting thing about this story is that Al Queda/Bin Lade operatives (Al Massari had set up Bin Ladens office in 1994) Found an MP to operate as their gofer. Remarkably he was also prepared to lie to the press about it.

""Hawk Communications has not existed for a long time and I had no remuneration, no expenses or reward of any kind from the Saudi opposition. I did all that I did and still do because I am determined to help the overthrow of the corrupt Saudi regime, not for any financial reward.

"Tony Newton's letter turns on the question of what are taxable expenses. Last year the Saudi opposition hired a hall in Westminster, and as the MP sponsoring it I had to pay for the hire; they then paid me that money back. Those are the only circumstances in which a single penny changed hands."

"This whole thing has a pre-election whiff about it. This complaint is spitefullly politically motivated by a previously little-known MP who, having been made a vice-chairman of the Conservative party, wants to earn his spurs. It is entirely without foundation." (Sunday Times, 16 August 1996) " 86.130.131.32 —The preceding comment was added 07.48, 19 May 2007

Can you be clear here on exactly what lie or lies you are claiming Galloway told to the press? I ask because it seems that you are reading all this "evidence" the way you want it to read. Nick Cooper 09:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Last year the Saudi opposition hired a hall in Westminster, and as the MP sponsoring it I had to pay for the hire; they then paid me that money back. Those are the only circumstances in which a single penny changed hands."

He carried cash for them and booked flights At least thats the evidence he gave to the Parliamentary committee.

Dont bother trying to get this stuff on to wiki. Of course its all true,but Galloway will issue legal threats. His supporters will accept that George carried bundles of cash for these Jihadists but didn't know what he was doing. At the same time they will claim him as an authority on the Middle East. His help for the Jihadists in the mid 90s is a disgrace, but one which will only be publiceised once Al Massari is arrested.

Regardless of whether or not it is true or not (I don't think it is), edits must conform to WP:NOR and WP:BLP. There is insufficient evidence either way and there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. All of the negative coverage of Galloway on this page satisfies WP:NPOV and it should stay that way. He's not a popular man and so if anyone had any proof, rather than speculation, that he had been involved in wrong doing, then it would be well known and publicised. -- Tompsci 00:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

":Regardless of whether or not it is true or not (I don't think it is), " actually most of it is not disputed. 1.Al Massari sets up office for Bin Laden in London 1994. 2.Office shared by Khalid Al Fawwaz and Saad Al Fagih. 3.Al Fawwaz now extradited.Al Fagih fund purchase of satellite phone used in East African Embassy Bombings. 4.1995/6 Galloway runs Al Massari must stay campaign and does PR work for Al Fagih and Al Massari. Books flights,gets t shirts printed, carries cash in envelopes to two people in London who he refuses to name (All admitted to Parliamentary Committee. 5.Galloway tells Sunday Times he only booked a hall, subsequently shown to be untrue.

The only real discussion is what George thought he was doing and what he knew.21stCenturyBuoy 14:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Presumably GG was not aware of at least 1 and 3. Inclusion within the article suggests otherwise, and with no evidence. This "discussion" would, without evidence from an authoritive source, breach WP:NOR and thus WP:BLP. It's impossible to speculate what GG did know about the situation and guilt is NOT transitive. But according to the Sunday Times; ""This whole thing has a pre-election whiff about it. This complaint is spitefullly politically motivated by a previously little-known MP who, having been made a vice-chairman of the Conservative party, wants to earn his spurs. It is entirely without foundation." His running of the "Al Massari must stay campaign" does not imply any knowledge of jihadist connections. -- Tompsci 15:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The order in which you have chosen to place the above is wrong and misleading. Galloway's involvement with Al Massari clearly predates the purchase of the satellite phone in November 1995. East African Embassy bombings did not happen until August 1998 - three years after the satelite phone was supplied. The true relevent chronology runs:

1. 1994 - Al Massari sets up office for Bin Laden. Also used by Khalid Al Fawwaz and Saad Al Fagih.

2. 1995/6 - Galloway runs Al Massari Must Stay campaign and does PR work for Al Fagih and Al Massari.

3. November 1995 - Al Fagih funds purchase of satellite phone for Osama bin Laden.

4. August 1996 - Galloway tells Sunday Times he only booked a hall.

5. August 1998 - Satellite phone supplied to Bin Laden used in connection with East African Embassy Bombings.

Of course, where is the evidence that Galloway was even just aware of the supply of the satellite phone to Bin Laden? What is certainly clear is that his dealings with Al Fagih occurred several years before the same phone was used for nefarious purposes. If someone you knew sold a house to someone you didn't know, who subsequently committed a murder in that house, how does that reflect on you? The simple answer is that doesn't any more than this reflects on Galloway.

As to what Galloway told the Sunday Times, I think you should study what he said more closely. He was talking about taxable expenses and also about when money actually "changed hands" between him and Al Massari. You seem to be reading what you want to read. Nick Cooper 16:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark. You're wrong on two counts. 1.The phone was purchased & shipped to Bin Laden in november 1996. 2.Your point about selling the house is interesting.You do know Al Fagih had been with Bin Laden in Afghanistan? 3.The money George was reimbursed for the hall was not taxable. neither were the cash reimbursements he admitted to when giving evidence to the Parliamentary Committee. flights and credit card payments.He lied to the Sunday Times. If you regard carrying envelopes full of cash round London as money not changing hands then thats a very odd attitude.

As I say, nowhere do I claim that George knew what he was doing. I suspect that the term useful idiot is the best description.

However, whatever your views,it is certainly an insight into how Al Queda got set up in London and how an "anti imperialist" MP could convince himself that acting as a gofer for violent Jihadists was somehow furthering the "struggle"21stCenturyBuoy 17:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, I note that I referred to the correct date for the satellite phone earlier - this time around I obviously slipped up while trying to decipher your continued obfuscation on the chronology. The fact remains that the phone was supplied well towards the end of - or after - Galloway's dealings with Al Fagih, and wasn't used for nefarious purposes until two years later.

2. So what if Alf Fagih had been in Afghanistan with Bin Laden? Lots of people had, including presumably the various US intelligence operatives who supportedhis anti-Soviet activities. All this happened before Bin Laden became the West's favourite bogeyman. You seem intent on crucifying Galloway based on what what someone he apparently didn't know (i.e. Bin Laden) would do years after being helped by someone her did know (i.e. Al Fagih). Where is the relevence?

3. Surprisingly, I don't regard that as money "changing hands" in the way you are implying, as Galloway was only the courier. You keep trying to pitch the matter of the money to suggest that Galloway benefitted from it, yet have failed to provide any evidence that he did. In that context, you might as well be talking about, "apples and oranges changing hands."

As to your last comment, again you are condemning Galloway for not knowing what would happen in the future, and even in that context his culpability is somewhat dwarfed by those in the United States who earlier supported Bin Laden's activities in Afghanistan. Nick Cooper 07:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere do I inmply Galloway gained financially. I think he was a loyal gofer and no money disappeared. (as opposed to the Asian Voice venture which he was running at the same time where £5ok according to the Auditors could not be traced) Glad you admit Galloway was a "courier" for the Al Queda men. A fit role for an MP in your mind? Not relevevant to Galloways biography that he was prepared to carry bundles round London and lie to the press about it? Why he lied about booking their flights and being reimbursed in cash is anyones guess. I think a section entitled "Galloway - Jihads Useful Idiot" may be apposite21stCenturyBuoy 08:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet again you are demonstrating your partiality by ignoring the chronology of events in using such loaded phrases as, "Galloway was a 'courier' for the Al Queda men." Given that neither the name nor the nature of what "Al Qaeda" is claimed to be was not generally known until after the East African Embassy bombings, you can't use it in the context of events pre-dating it in connection with someone who was almost certainly as unaware of it as most other people were. As to your remaining comments, you merely demonstrate a rather charming and naive view of what British MPs are likely to get up to, even when they stay within the bounds of the law. Nick Cooper 12:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think he lied then?21stCenturyBuoy 12:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference and quote the specific claimed contradictory statements and I'll tell you. Nick Cooper 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And it certainly exposes how Al Queda could use a helpful gofer to get themselves set up in London.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.131.3213:00, 22 May 2007 (talk • contribs)

Where is the evidence that this is what happened? All I see is that Galloway was involved with people who - unknown to him - may have later been implicated with "Al Qaeda". However, the fact that both men remain at liberty in the UK, and have never been arrested in connection with these claimed connections, is illustrative of how tenuous they must be. Nick Cooper 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not later Nick. 1994. The year after the first attempt on the World Trade Center ""Last year the Saudi opposition hired a hall in Westminster, and as the MP sponsoring it I had to pay for the hire; they then paid me that money back. Those are the only circumstances in which a single penny changed hands."

Read his evidence to the Parliamentary Committee detailing credit card payments he amde for the Jihadists and was reimbursed for.

He certainly was useful to them dont you think. A cash courier who asked no questions and refused to say where the cash went.21stCenturyBuoy 15:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, if it is your conspiracy theory, it falls foul of WP:NOR. If you can find this conspiracy theory in a reliable source, we might have a conversation about including it in the article. Until then, --Guinnog 15:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that nobody was linking Bin Laden et al to the WTC until much later, and even now it's far from a proven connection. You seem to be condemning Galloway for him not working out something that nobody else did until years afterwards.

I'm not going to do you legwork for you. Don't just throw in unsourced quotes or refer vaguely to some source or other. As Guinnog says, find a reputable source that is making the same connections that you are desperately trying to make, because you doing it doesn't count. Nick Cooper 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm not condemning Galloway for knowing anything. I thinnk in this case he was taken for a ride by the Jihadis who needed a useful idiot. Galloways form with cash obviously made him even better. I'm sure these jolly gentlemen were all really liberal opponents of the Saudi regime when George was scurrying around London as their errand boy. Only in the months afterwards did the become violent,anti semitic Jihadis.86.130.131.32 18:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. Nick Cooper 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats the generous version Nick. The alternative is George knew what he was helping.86.130.131.32 20:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Youtube link

I've removed the link to Youtube added by 163.1.165.116 for the very good reason that that material is BBC copyright, therefore its unauthorised appearance on the site constutes a breach of that copyright, which is something Wikipedia should not be seen to be condoning. Nick Cooper 07:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, that hadn't occurred to me. However, could you be a little more careful next time? You took out a sentence and another source at the same time with that reversion. --163.1.165.116 07:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon

User:86.130.131.32 added the sentence "Galloway expressed support for the Syrian occupation of Lebanon 5 months before it ended", with a reference to the Lebanion Daily Star <ref>{{cite web |date=[[May 24th]] [[2007]] |publisher=[[Lebanon Daily Star 12/7/04]] }}</ref>

This reference does not work, and is useless for a contentious allegation. In fact, I doubt very much that User:86.130.131.32 has even seen the paper in question, and suspect that he is quoting a secondary source that referred to this, such as Harry's Place. This is certainly not a reliable source. Further, as WP:CITE states, "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source." Another editor was recently threatened with an indefinite ban from Wikipedia for just such behaviour, and it should certainly not be permitted in a biography of a living person. I have moved the claim to this Talk page, and it should not be reinserted without a verifiable source. RolandR 12:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. The Lebanon Daily Star archive goes behind a pay wall but the second sentence of the article reveals Galloways opposition to UN resolution 1559.86.130.131.32 12:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please scan and post the article, so that we can verify that it says what you claim. I am not prepared to accept this on simply your word, nor that of Harry's Place. The fact that you thought it appeared on 12 July, not 7 December, [20], proves that you were not quoting the paper itself, but a secondary source which refverred to this as "12/07/2004". If you do not have the article, and are merely quoting a secondary source, you MUST state so in the reference. RolandR 13:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense, the cited reference is accurately reflected in the article, and 86.130.131.32 correctly points out that even the freely available portion of the reference states Galloway was against 1559. I note that you offer no evidence whatsoever as to why this should be a contentious allegation. Quit hiding behind guidelines to push your POV.

Wnjr 13:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you know the cited reference is quoted accurately? Do you have a subscription to the Daily Star, or are you too accepting someone else's word that the text is there? Nobody has yet cited a reliable and verifiable source for this statement, and as I have clearly shown above, 86.130.131.32 lied when s/he claimed to be quoting from the Daily Star. Other editors have been severely penalised for such behaviour. RolandR 13:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do have access to Daily Star archives. The Daily Star is a reliable and verifiable source for this uncontroversial statement. You appear to be misreprenting the situation of User:PalestineRemembered, who does not seem to have been penalised at all. If you know differently, please cite, a link to an open ArbCom page is no good.

Wnjr 14:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the block log, and at the archived discussion on the community sanction noticeboard. PalestineRemembered was quite clearly penalised, and was then further penalised for even questioning this. As you will see, several editors in this discussion did indeed call for a permanent ban on PR for exactly the same behaviour, which was described as "fraudulent material added to Wikipedia", "a massive violation of WP:CITE" and other over the top remarks. Of course I'm not suggesting that 86.130.131.32 should be banned for this; I am insisting that s/he provides a true and verifiable reference to the source where s/he found this sentence. RolandR 20:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered was blocked for a total of ~ten hours, and this you call severely penalised? Again, I suggest you are misrepresenting that situation, it was also described as a minor citation error, 'lynching' etc; and of course pointed out that WP:CITE is not a policy. You still haven't provided any reason to doubt the content added by 86.130.131.32. I ask again, why is this a contentious allegation?

Wnjr 11:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for much longer than ten hours, and was threatened with a permanent block, as reading the full account will show. Although the block log shows that the block was lifted, he was officially notified that this was solely in order to comment on the arbcom page. When he responded to a comment about this on another user;s talk page, he was again blocked for breaching the conditions of the lifting. Effectively he was blocked for ten days; and he didn't even lie about his source, merely misattributed it, and immediately confirmed that he was quoting at second-hand; something which 86.130.131.32, in the face of the evidence, still denies. RolandR 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lied? Dont think so Roland.I used US date format.Which you'll find Harrys Place doesn't.

No, you quite specifically presented the date as "July 12th 2004". Which means that you copied the text from a source which used the American date format "12/07/2004", and misinterpreted this. If you had quoted directly from the Daily Star, you would have known that it was the edition of 7 December. The URL you cite clearly states "Tuesday, December 07, 2004". So answer please, where did you copy the text from? Since tou didn'y use the Daily Star, and few of us (Wnjr apart) have access to their archives, we need to know your own source in order that we can ourselves assess its reliability. RolandR 20:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to pursue this line, why haven't you pointed out that the Pakistan Coup quote comes from a subscription archive of the Scottish Mail on Sunday not available online either. And any quotes from Galloways book.Or do you require a page scan for sections of that which have been posted all over the web. It may help Roland, if rather than accusing people of lying you provided some evidence for your own asstertions.How are the citations for Galloways anti Saddam activities coming along? Your performance on this section seems to me to be motivated by embarrassment at Galloways support for Syrian (and moroccan ?) occupations. Don't be embarrassed. Its no reflection on you. 86.130.131.32 14:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Roland. Please stop embarrassing yourself.Its sad. If you dispute the quotes then point out where they are wrong. Or better still, find the citations for the anti Saddam stuff.86.130.131.32 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RolandR, please stop removing cited quotations from this article. If you continue, I may have to make a Request for Comment. Your behaviour has been extremely unhelpful and whilst I assumed good faith at the start it has become apparent that you are POV pushing to a ridiculous extent. Removing cited sources is not good practice, and it is tiresome and disappointing to see that this continues. --163.1.165.116 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Stirring up racial tensions"?

An anonymous editor is continually adding the statement that Galloway won his election in 2005 "through methods some including Tony Banks had described as 'stirring up racial tensions'". The reference is to the BBC's election night programme[21]. However, this source does not in fact bear out the claim. In the transcript, interviewer Jeremy Paxman says to Galloway: "Tony Banks was sitting here five minutes ago, and he said that you were behaving inexcusably, that you had deliberately chosen to go to that part of London and to exploit the latent racial tensions there". For a start, this is a reported statement; we do not have Banks's alleged own words. Even here, though, he is reported to have spoken of "exploiting" latent racial tensions -- a very different thing from "stirring up" racial tensions. And Tony Banks was not "some"; he was just one person, and his comment, even if accurately reported, is not evidence that others shared this view.

The cited source does not verify the statement inserted into the article, which should not be included without more solid evidence. RolandR 17:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Guinnog 17:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you a transcript of Tony Banks' remarks from an off-air of the election night programme.

Banks: What I find very disappointing, because I've had some time for George is that here is a white man coming into the East End, which he doesn't know, and unseating an ethnic minority woman. And that's, I've got to tell you, that's a racial minefield down there, and they ...

Paxman: But he has a legitimate point of view.

Banks: I know he has a legitimate point of view. Pity he didn't come and try it in East Ham, or West Ham, rather than pick up in Tower Hamlets. There's been a lot of opposition to Oona amongst muslim, er, the muslim population, because she's a woman, as simple and straightforward – and George Galloway has been able to exploit that, together with the Iraqi war. I think this is, as we've said before, I think we'll cauterize the wounds that have been caused to our party through the Iraq war and its spillover, and I think George will be out at the next election and Labour will have its fourth victory.

Paxman: But to be clear about this, you're saying this was not a fight about the legitimacy or otherwise of the Iraq war, that that was a casus belli perhaps but, what he was doing was exploiting all sorts of other issues there.

Banks: I'm sure that George would be sticking to what he said he was sticking to, and that is the position of the Labour Party and Iraq. But I know that area pretty well, I suspect I know that area rather better than George, and I know all the underlying tensions that go on in that area and all the sort of - I mean, he might say something but people are voting for other reasons as well. A lot of people have been trying to get rid of Oona King for a while because she's a mixed race woman and a lot of muslims don't like her.

Not quite the same as what was put to George Galloway there, I think. However there are people who have accused George Galloway and Respect generally of deliberately inflaming racial tensions in Tower Hamlets: Wais Islam said so when he joined the Labour Party at the beginning of the month. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst that's fascinating, it's still not sourced and therefore unusable.FelixFelix ^talk 13:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What a bloody stupid thing to write. Of course it's sourced, I told you exactly where I got it from, and it's easily verifiable by anyone who has access to an off-air recording of the BBC election night programme. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 14:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The point being made (I think!) is this: that Banks has previously been cited as a source for the 'stirring up racial tensions' accusation - and yet nowhere here does he say that at all. He says the area is a 'racial minefield', but does not suggest in any way that Galloway had been exploiting that. The nearest he comes is the suggestion that Galloway has exploited opposition (allegedly originating from the Muslim community) to King because she's a woman - and that's not the same thing. When Banks later adds 'mixed race' to the equation, it is in the context of his apparent claim to know better than Galloway what the 'underlying tensions' are; so how can Galloway reasonably be said to be exploiting tensions of which he has little or no knowledge? Essentially, anyone trying to use Banks to back up the 'stirring up tensions' accusation can only do so by ignoring or misrepresenting his actual words. Guy Hatton 14:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's my (fairly obvious) point.FelixFelix ^talk 14:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor in question, and frankly I didn't expect this article to be quite the touchy topic it apparently is. The Paxman interview we have already, in which Paxman suggests that Galloway is accused of stirring up racial tensions. Furthermore, in the newspaper source (the Evening Standard) the same accusation is made. RolandR, you appear to be ignoring this other source entirely and I suggest you consult it as well as the interview. So, we have two sourced statements which make the statement that Galloway was stirring up racial tensions (whether reported or not, secondary sources are still sources). The comment should not, as practice dictates, be removed out of hand.

Why is this specific statement being repeatedly excluded by what appears to be a small clique of interested editors? It is bad practice to remove sourced statements on spurious grounds. As per my comment above, if this continues I will probably bring a RfC and seek the input of disinterested and neutral editors. --163.1.165.116 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read the transcript, and the interview, carefully, and nobody but you is accusing Galloway of "stirring up racial tensions". Paxman states that Banks accused Galloway of "exploiting latent racial tensions"; what Banks actually said was that Galloway was "exploiting opposition among the Muslim population". Unless you can find a verifiable soiurce for the allegationb that Galloway was "stirring up racial tension", then the statement is unfounded -- in fact, untrue -- and cannot be allowed to remain in the article. RolandR 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's being excluded as, thus far, it appears to be untrue. If you don't think so, source the quote and prove us wrong. By all means request an RfC, but it won't change the insubstantial nature of your citations so far.FelixFelix ^talk 15:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Big Brothers Big Mouth

It is not contentious to quote Galloways sign off. Here is the source.

I watched the clip, Galloway did indeed make a clenched fist salute and say "Harry Pollitt" in his sign off from "Big Brother's Big Mouth". Why has this been removed consistently? It is quite telling of Galloway's character. It is surely the equivalent of a right-wing MP crying "Oswald Mosley", whilst making a fascist salute. --IWILLSETYOUFREE 17:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It was removed because som eof those who support Galloways stance towards some political issues, are deeply embarrassed by much of his behaviour86.130.131.32 19:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there appear to be no objections, and I don't see how any could be made I am putting it back on and will continue to do so. --IWILLSETYOUFREE 08:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wildly biased lefitsts keep removing it. They might as well give up, because I'm just going to add it again.--IWILLSETYOUFREE 09:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice it's been removed again on the frankly ludicrous grounds of being unsourced. Editors might dispute the significance but not, surely, the fact this happened. This takes the obsession with sourcing to a point at which it actively harms the encyclopaedia. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient and stop trying to add it to the article. Wikipedia isn't a blog and we don't do investigative journalism. If you can find a reliable source for the utterance, fine, but I'm afraid a youtube video in which a person appears to utter a name isn't acceptable for reasons of both verifiability and original research. --Tony Sidaway 12:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

agreed. Galloway is highly reported in the press. Any information that can't be sourced to reasonably reliable secondary sources does not belong here.--Doc^g 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what's called "being a bit stupid". It is perfectly acceptable by verifiability standards to give the source as "Big Brother's Big Mouth, transmitted on Channel 4, June 4, 2007" or whichever date it was, I don't watch it. I don't know that it is significant enough to report but if it is, then that was the source and no-one should be intimidated into thinking the source is inadequate. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 14:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets be clear here. Some people such as Roland try and remove anything embarrassing that Galloway does,sourced or not.86.130.131.32 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not just Roland. It's the encyclopedia.

It's something you could put in your blog. It's also something a newspaper journalist could write about, or a Member of Parliament could raise in the House. Wikipedia is different. We're not reporters. While we're not stupid, we also don't make a significant thing out of something nobody else has (yet) taken notice of.

So if you think this is something significant pertaining to George Galloway, raise the matter with your local MP, or contact a national newspaper, and persuade a political reporter that it's something to write about. Then it may qualify for entry into this encyclopedia article, depending on its overall significance. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also notable that certain users involved in this debate have a contibutions history that consists almost entirely of the insertion of negative material about Galloway (except for one brief instance where the target was Tommy Sheridan) - a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I'd suggest. Guy Hatton 08:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The sign off should be taken in the context of the show. Russell Brand used to sign off with "Hare Krishna" when he presented the show. When Chris Moyles guest presented it, he signed off with "Harry Ramsden's". Galloway's use of "Harry Pollitt" is just one in a series of sign offs which start with Harry (or Hare). Lucas42 05:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

'Far' left?

Rather than getting into an edit war, I think it might be useful if editors would state their views on whether or not this is an accurate description of Galloway's politics. To start the ball rolling: I say 'no' on grounds of (at least): personal opposition to women's reproductive rights, insistence on drawing more than the average worker's wage and primary focus on parliamentary politics. Left-reformist perhaps, but far-left, certainly not. Guy Hatton 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends what people perceive as 'far left', of course. There's no doubt that Galloway's stance places him as probably the furthest left member to take their seat in Parliament, so comparatively the description is reasonable. However I dispute your belief that Galloway has a "primary focus on parliamentary politics", given his low attendance record and open declaration that most debates do not really concern him. Galloway's tendency to graphic, even violent, imagery in his speeches makes determining his real political stance more difficult (it should be remembered that Galloway was never, when within the Labour Party, among the most left-wing MPs).

The question is whether describing him as 'far left' is informative. I don't agree with your belief that Galloway's personal opposition to abortion is evidence of not being on the left: it may be in the USA but not in the UK where such matters are not generally considered relevant. Describing Galloway as 'Left-reformist' is an Americanism and unacceptable because its only significance is in dividing revolutionary from non-revolutionary socialists. I'm inclined to think that 'far left' is possibly the most accurate two word (or seven letter) description of Galloway's political stance at the moment. If it needs to be expanded, then one should look to a definition which covers the entirety of his political career rather than just his current affiliation. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

His pro life views are an anomaly, do check the theyworkforyou page on him: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/george_galloway/bethnal_green_and_bow

I consider him far left due to his views n foreign policy, he appears to be an appologist for Islamic terrorist organisations, though the lib dems have always been against the war, they have never taken an anti Israel stance as George has done. Then whenever he does happen to support a position that conservatives or labour support, he would derride them and point out how different his ideology is in comparison. Then there are his views on the soviet union and capitalism. His new book, "Fidel's handbook", there's much more but I'm a little short on time at the moment. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Leaving aside the fact that the term 'left wing' is difficult to define, how is adding the epithet 'far left' to Galloway's article as a descriptive helpful or illuminating? All it does is imply disapproval-it tells you nothing about his actual views, and giani g's confused statements above illustrate this-in what way does 'far left' imply apologetics for Islamic terrorist organisations? It clearly does nothing of the sort- plenty of figures on the far right have far more openly supported terrorist organisations, Bin Laden's network being a good example-not to mention the support of the Reagan administration for the Taliban in the 1980s. And as far as I'm aware, Galloway is an anti-Zionist, which is, again, nothing to do with being either left or right wing.

We are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article, not engaging in questionable polemics about a public figure who is alive (and famously litiginous)-so lets try and keep this informative for people actually trying to find out facts about Galloway, rather than trite smears. He's not a revolutionary socialist, the usual group labelled with 'far-left', so leave it out.FelixFelix ^talk 11:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how 'far left' implies disapproval. It's merely a comparative descriptive term. And while George Galloway may not himself be a revolutionary socialist, by being a member of Respect he is in alliance with the Socialist Workers Party who are. To say merely that he is on the left, or is a socialist, is undescriptive to the point of obscurity. To say that he is far left does at least approach usefulness. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 14:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

'Far left' is always used as a pejorative-as a moments reflection will reveal ('far' left of what?), and is used in the same way as 'far right'. It's never used as a self descriptive term, which probably underlines my point. To say that Galloway is a socialist is perfectly descriptive-it means he believes in socialism-one could go further and say that he's a reformatory socialist. But using the pejorative 'far left' tells us what exactly?FelixFelix ^talk 06:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's completely untrue that 'far left' is always pejorative. It's a comparative term, which states that the politics of the individual so described are to the left of the vast majority of other people in their society. There are plenty of people who happily describe themselves as "far left" and see no problem in it - and the problem for you is that includes George Galloway's supporters: Socialist Worker included. Alex Callinicos happily reported that the Far Left was on the rise in Europe. John Rees refers to the Muslim alliance with the far left. Meanwhile to say George Galloway is a socialist is unhelpfully vague because socialism is a very wide ideology indeed. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 12:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's pejorative-and two articles from the Socialist Worker, which use the term once each don't disprove that. Being 'to the far left of the majority of people in society' sounds rather like OR to me, not to mention POV. To describe someone as socialist means something-ie their belief in the common ownership of the means of production. To smear/describe them as 'far left' tells you precisely nothing about them, except that the editor who used the term doesn't like them.FelixFelix ^talk 21:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't really give any argument to support your views. People on the far left happily describe themselves as on the far left and don't see it as pejorative. It isn't a pejorative term. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I disagree that people happily use it as a term to describe themselves-the 2 articles from Socialist Worker you linked to do nothing to dispel that notion. And it's clearly pejorative, and it's certainly not descriptive, as 'left wing' is an amorphous and meaningless term anyway, so even your original definition would fail on that criteria.FelixFelix ^talk 11:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether Galloway's views are far-left, not those of his present political associates. Giani's comments above seem to suggest quite strongly that he at least sees 'far-left' as a term of deprecation, even though he appears to have little idea what 'far-left' actually means. Also, you yourself have pointed out that Galloway was never even the most left-wing Labour MP during his time in that party. Guy Hatton 16:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

But he isn't in the party now. He's happy to lead a movement which largely consists of the SWP. (He is a prominent political leader even if he holds no formal post of leadership) Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 12:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But he's not a revolutionary socialist, is he?FelixFelix ^talk 21:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but one does not have to be a revolutionary socialist to be on the far left. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's your point then, that he's guilty by association?FelixFelix ^talk 11:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You talk about 'guilty' - being a revolutionary socialist isn't a crime. The point is, that those not on the far left will not generally ally with revolutionary socialists in any circumstances. The Labour Party will not do joint campaigns with the SWP. George Galloway will. That distinguishes him from being merely on the left and places him on the far left. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC) (There was a 'not' missing at a crucial point Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

I'm afraid that doesn't make sense. You must do better..FelixFelix ^talk 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Even with the addition of the missing 'not', this doesn't stand up to scrutiny, Fys. There is a long history of Labour/SWP collaboration in a number of campaigns from the Anti-Nazi League to the Stop The War Coalition and others. Guy Hatton 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Stop the War Coalition that's been campaigning against the Labour Party ever since it was set up? That rather rebounded on you didn't it? Can I invite you to an analogy about Stalinists. Normally, calling someone a 'Stalinist' is a pejorative term. However, there are some who are openly and proudly Stalinists. The Stalin Society are among them. To describe them as Stalinists is descriptive. Being 'far left' is sometimes used as an insult but not always, and in this case it's descriptive. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 19:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

STWC campaign against the war and the government prosecuting it, not the Labour party per se-indeed many labour party members are in it, so your point doesn't stand. And we're not talking about Stalinists (ie those that follow Stalin's doctrines) but the 'far left'-what ever that might be.FelixFelix ^talk 20:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The government is Labour. You can't divide the two. And it's quite clear that George Galloway is on the far left in the British political spectrum. I do not know why you are trying to hide this obvious fact. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 20:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the government is the government, the Labour party is distinct-hence all the problems of the cash for honours scandal, for example. And it's far from clear that Galloway is on the 'far left' of 'the political spectrum'-what evidence do you have for that? His opposition to the war? I'd say that put him firmly in the mainstream.FelixFelix ^talk 06:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, it's absolutely clear George Galloway is on the far left and your motive in trying to put across your own views is now increasingly transparent. Opposition to the liberation of Iraq is not in and of itself characteristic of the far left absent any other information, but George Galloway goes much further: eulogizing Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, supporting Hizbollah, opposing nuclear weapons, and then leaving aside foreign policy, support for public ownership, opposition to all forms of outsourcing and privatisation, increased public spending on universal welfare benefits, removal of legal limits on the activities of trade unions, etc. I'm not saying any of these policies are wrong. What I am saying is that taken together they are characteristic of a person on the far left of the political spectrum within the UK. I really don't see how any other view can be taken. Where do you see George Galloway comparatively in the UK? Are you as deluded as Oswald Mosley who insisted he was in the centre? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So I take it that you're conceding the point about the difference between the government and the Labour party? And as to the list of policies that he supports, how are any of these 'far left'? Support of public ownership (which is essentially all you're saying with your list of domestic policies) is just a socialist one, and one supported by many in the mainstream Labour party. As for your list of foreign policies, I don't see how opposing nuclear weapons or supporting Hizballah are left wing at all, not to mention the fact that 'eulogizing Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez' is neither a policy, nor uncommon. You say that I really don't see how any other view can be taken. That much is obvious-but your inability to see other people's point of view doesn't make you right. And perhaps you ought to take a quick peek at WP:NPA, whilst you're at it.FelixFelix ^talk 11:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Far-left is something that is "radical or extremely liberal."[22] I would classify communism or socialism as radical or extreme liberalism. I don't see how Galloway can be viewed as a socialist; he might endorse some socialistic ideas, but he has not shown he is a true socialist. Just today I was reading on article on a book review of Galloway[23] from SocialismToday.org and it is critical of Galloway for having views that are not in-line with socialism. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem there is that you're using American terminology. George Galloway is not an American. Your statement that you don't see how Galloway can be viewed as a socialist is absolutely ludicrous as George Galloway plainly is a socialist! The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party, and Respect includes socialism in its backronym abbreviation. What you seem to have done is read the journal of one far-left sect which happens not to like him. In case you aren't familiar, the favourite sport of the far left is accusing other members of the far left of not being socialists. No one authority has the absolute right to award or withhold the description 'socialist'; it's self-assumed. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No one authority has the absolute right to award or withhold the description 'socialist'; it's self-assumed. Unlike 'far-left' apparently.FelixFelix ^talk 11:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Pathetic and weak point. You must do better. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the point is a good one-why not answer it?FelixFelix ^talk 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No. It's a debating point and not a serious one. It's a straw man argument. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's a point you raised-which applies to an argument that you're making, and the logic is contradictory. You won't answer the case, because you can't.FelixFelix ^talk 20:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would explain what the point is. Because you haven't done so far. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 20:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't tricky.You wrote,No one authority has the absolute right to award or withhold the description 'socialist'; it's self-assumed. Yet you're very keen to award the description 'far left' in the absence of a self description by Galloway. This is despite the fact that 'socialist' is a far more objective definition (someone who believes in the common ownership of the means of production), than 'far-left' which has no meaningful definition whatsoever. And is a pejorative to boot.FelixFelix ^talk 06:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Far-left" left should be kept off the article until someone cites at least one reliable (and preferably neutral) source which refers to Galloway as far-left, since it is not self-evident and has been contested. IMO, there is no use in discussing this any further. IMO, far left is not a pejorative, it is a description of a political views, just like "left" is. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, why didn't you say? Sources coming right up. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspension from House of Commons

May I express the hope that, when the section of the article dealing with Mr. Galloway's suspension is written it adverts both to the fact that Mr. Galloway disputes the accuracy of many of the documents cited against him, going so far as to state that forensic examination has shown some to be forgeries; and also that he was prevented, by the Speaker of the House, from completing his statement in defence of his position, although the Speaker did nothing to interrupt those members who followed, speaking against Mr.Galloway. HenriLobineau 08:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but I understand that the Speaker repeatedly gave Mr. Galloway the opportunity to rephrase his attacks in a more civil manner. --Camptown 08:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

George has never claimed they are forgeries. Indeed he turned down all opportunities to view the documents86.130.127.161 10:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Conversion?

Did Galloway convert to Islam when he married his former Muslim wife? Usually Muslim women get ousted by the community, or much worse, when marrying non-Muslims, as neither sharia nor tradition allow for it. However, there are no reports indicating trouble for Amineh Abu-Zayyad. -ted

Named

On July 23, Mr Galloway was "named" by the Speaker of the Commons. How frequently has that measure been taken by Speakers in recent history? --Camptown 08:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Very infrequently. No member has been named (under Standing Order 44) for at least a decade. I think the last case was Ian Paisley on 29 November 1993 (see Hansard). Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I salute your courage

Galloway's famous statement to Saddam Hussein keeps being removed from the introduction, but it's much better known than some of the other things in there. I have read the material on POV and NPOV and it looks to me as if it's POV to remove it, since it's by far one of the most notable things about him. Is there some sort of political fight going on here between Galloway supporters and people trying to NPOV the article? LiberalViews 09:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a very old argument. For information - the following, more detailed description of what went on and its interpretation is to be found already in the article:

Galloway opposed the 1991 Gulf War and was critical of the effect the subsequent sanctions had on the people of Iraq. He visited Iraq several times and met senior government figures. His involvement caused certain critics to deride him as the "member for Baghdad North". In 1994, Galloway faced some of his strongest criticism on his return from a Middle-Eastern visit during which he had met Saddam Hussein "to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war." At the meeting, he reported the support given to Saddam by the people of the Gaza Strip and ended his speech with the phrase "Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability,"[50] although Galloway maintains that he was misquoted.[51] Additionally he reportedly said "hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds" (Arabic for "until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem").

I presume that LiberalViews took the trouble to read the article in full before editing.

There was a long and acrimonious edit war over whether the claim that Galloway was personally praising Saddam was: a.) acceptable at all, and b.) appropriate for the lead section between May and November of last year. It was decided then that the answer was 'no', and I see no reason to revise that decision now. It's worth noting that othe most vociferous proponent of inclusion ended up banned (for a number of reasons, not all directly related to this article) along with his sockpuppet on the very day that LiberalViews's account was created. Guy Hatton 10:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are you referring to having been perma-blocked Guy? Actually there was no such agreement - what actually happened was that a lot of rather curious one-off contributors suddenly appeared determined to remove the best-known statement of Galloway from the intro, where it clearly should be. The claim that he was misquoted is laughable and absurd, although it is of course Wikipedian to include it in the article. This claim and the related stuff about victory, victory, etc, can go lower in the article. Clearly LiberalViews is right though about the notability of the statement - it's far more significant than much of the other material in the intro. Also Guy you shouldn't just remove something like that calling it "POV", it clearly isn't POV as the article contains that very same text lower down the page! I agree it shouldn't appear twice in the article but over-simplistic and accusatory edit comments don't help. MarkThomas 08:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said that anyone was perma-blocked, though of course that is exactly what happened to your established sockpuppet 'Sarah Williams'. (In saying this, I refer to the fact that Wikipedia's investigative procedures established that the account was a sockpuppet, and I am aware that both you and 'Sarah Williams' pleaded innocence). I recall the accusations you made about various other contributors, some of whom, contrary to your claims, were not 'one-off' but in fact had easily verifiable contribution histories (to be fair, some others did not, as I recall). You even went so far as to make the completely unfounded accusation that one of those non-one-off editors was my sockpuppet, whilst using a sockpuppet account yourself.

To return to Galloway - the claim is not that he is being misquoted (though the short version which LV seeks to have in the article lead might be seen to be 'selective'). Indeed, the point is that the article already contains an accurate version of what he is known to have said. What is in dispute is the interpretation of his words, especially in the light of the fact that the speaker himself claims that he was not referring to Saddam in a personal capacity, but to the Iraqi people as a whole. It is this 'spin' which is POV, and hence inappropriate, not the words themselves. Notability is something that is open to debate, of course, but as you yourself admit that the duplication of the material is unnecessary, and as the version in the 'Criticisms' section deals with the incident in greater depth, I conclude that I was right to remove the shorter version from the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Hatton (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The basic point that Galloway said what he said appears now to have stuck, but user Felix-felix seems to be simply re-inserting irrelevant and non-notable remarks by Galloway on another Iraq visit, which tend to divert from the core remarks. Felix you claim that this is "POV" - how can it be "POV" to delete non-notable and irrelevant comments from the introduction? LiberalViews 19:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Support LiberalViews on this; quick study of the article shows long history of political intervention from pro-Respect and pro-Galloway editors. 212.183.134.209 19:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Galloway enemies like to trumpet that quote; it has plenty of POV baggage. I disagree as to its great relevance. The one editor wrote a short edit comment like "Galloway the well-known Saddam Hussein lover" and that illustrates the low level of debate by some of those agitating for it to be prominently inserted. The comment about trying to stop a mad rush over the cliff, referring to the invasion, is illustrative of Galloway's reason for going to Iraq and contextualizes the trip. Those reasons and the context are notable, and the quote ilustrates them. DanielM 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC) DanielM 21:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It was only recently introduced as an attempt to dilute the effect of Galloway's lavish personal praise of Saddam, which has been repeatedly deleted by pro-Galloway editors and yet is still in the article; it is not contextual, it's irrelevant. 212.183.134.66 22:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That last edit of yours, and possibly the edit before it as well, appear to be violations of WP:three-revert rule (3RR). You appear to have deleted the "stop this rush over the cliff" quote and other contextual text at least four times withing 24 hours, at 0749 today, and 2216, 2141, and 1914 yesterday. It does depend on whether you are not only 212.183.134.129, but also 212.183.134.66, and 212.183.134.209. As I understand it, those changes in that last number group may indicate you logged off and back on to your Internet provider. Are they indeed all you? Are you also a registered editor choosing not to log in? I noticed you also appear to be the editor who left the short edit comment, referring to "Galloway's well-known love of Saddam." 3RR says "Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations." DanielM 10:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Sir,i salute you..." is simply galloways most famous single quote, vastly more notable and repeated than his accusations against the US select commity. It should be as it is front and center in the intro and delt with in detail later. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Putting in points of view of Respect candidates,regarding a translation of a speech Galloway made thirteen years ago is ludicrous.21stCenturyBuoy —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is not really what is being done. We are reporting on Galloway's, Anasal-Tikriti's and the translator's understanding of what Galloway said in English, with Anasal-Tikriti adducing the translation as evidence. If they are not included, we run the risk of violating WP:BLP by indulging in Contextomy. One could equally well eliminate the quote entirely, but if it is included, we have to make a reasonable effort to give major points of view, and in a biography of a living person, we must take particular care to fairly present that person's point of view.John Z 18:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In which case why have you edited the following sentence from the original article."According toAnasal-Tikriti,afriendofGalloway'sand spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain:" Suddenly "a friend of Galloways" has been cut out21stCenturyBuoy 19:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

21stCenturyBuoy, removing other people's comments (e.g. my reply to you above) from discussion pages is frowned on; the right way is to reply to them. Your critical edit-summary-comment "In which case,anyones POV on what Galloway said in English is relevant" is hard to square with policy and practice. Indeed anyone's, - any reliable source expressing a major POV on what he said is in fact quite relevant. As I said above, if a source represents a living person's point of view, it is particularly important to include in an article on him. It is necessary to make note of, but not surprising when a person defends himself. It is more noteworthy when other people agree with him. Excluding this belittles this living person's POV, and is dangerous in terms of BLP.

As for your last statement, if that sentence was in the article at one time, any change wasn't mine; I just reverted to someone else's edit.John Z 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that removal. It was a misplaced click by me. As for the inclusion of the quote from Al Tikriti. It has been edited to exclude the fact that Al Tikriti is " A friend of Galloways" check the original.21stCenturyBuoy 19:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome to re-add that, I just didn't want it to be a direct copy and paste from the news article. I didn't have time to re-phrase it at the time. I would have no objection to you doing it. The fact that he is a "friend of Galloway's" is irrelivent. The point that makes it worthy of inclusion is the Arabic translation and what was heard by President Hussein. That is absolutely relevent, and it's pure vandalism to delete it. honorgoals 21:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Excellency Uday Hussain

Galloway refers to Uday as "your excellency" Why he did this,when Uday has never held an official position is unknown,but relevant as it exposes a part of Galloway which is often referred to.ie,that he grovels befor unsaoury people.In this case a murderer and Rapist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21stCenturyBuoy (talk • contribs) 12:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at Non sequitur (logic). Nick Cooper 14:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't think its important Galloway used the term unneccessarily to a rapist?21stCenturyBuoy 14:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no overt connection between the two facts, therefore for you to make one is disallowed by Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Nick Cooper 14:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nick your wrong we are just providing facts not synthesis, the readers can decide for themselves if calling a multiple murderer and rapist "your excellency" is a good thing or a bad thing. It would only be sythesis if this fact was tied to a separate claim about galloway. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Its surely relevant that Uday had never held a position attracting the sobriquet "Excellency" but that Galloway chose to use it.I'm not speculating why (although not difficult to) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.123.9 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What readers of this ENCYCLOPEDIA need to know is why; Galloway refers to Uday as "your excellency" draws criticism from some notable sources. This is most easily done by adding sourced info on Uday in the form of Rapist or Torturer or Murderer to the front of his name so that readers can easily work out themselves why this draws criticism. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is important that Galloway used the term Excellency to a Rapist whose position did not require him to be referred to as "Excellency" You may not like Galloways grovelling Roland,but that doesn't expunge it21stCenturyBuoy 17:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like diplomatic protocol to me. I think this debate about referring to Uday as "rapist Uday Hussein" is really a back-door way to slam George Galloway with a guilt-by-association argument, which WP:BLP specifically tells us to beware. DanielM 23:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats not what we are saying its what the source is saying so clearly not a blp violation, so any more arguments based on policy. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If - as you seem to be, by your last edit summary - you are being anal about what the Scotsman article says, it does not describe, "Galloway enthusiastically greeting Uday Hussein" (my emphasis). It also does not make the same direct corrolation between how Galloway addressed him and his reputation. As a comparative yardstick, the article on Neville Chamberlain mentions Adolf Hitler, but do not divert into a precis of the latters crimes. The same principle should be applied here. Nick Cooper 11:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler is one of the most well known people in world history, Uday isn't. Readers should not be expected to go through every wikilink to understand what is going on and the whole "your excellency" section does not make any sence without why it generated the criticism of galloway. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely the point. Uday was a squalid unimportant rapist with no position that would require the title Excellency.The fact that Galloway fawned like he did Does reflect on Galloway.86.130.123.9 22:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• You're obviously struggling with NPOV. I think you should leave this article to mature people who aren't edit warring because of political bias. honorgoals 05:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes because there are no Pro-galloway/Respect editors editing this article, NONE, HONEST. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Roland wont stop this. He believed Galloways lies about CARDRI remember.86.130.123.9 17:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• • EVERYBODY who struggles with NPOV should leave the article. You can't justify your POV edits because somebody else made a POV edit. Two bad edits don't equal a good article. And you two should be the last ones criticising others for POV editing, because you're the worst offenders. Now that you've admitted your bias, I think it's time for you to leave this article and troll elsewhere instead. honorgoals 12:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Size of the article

This article is massive, it's quite an effort to save the page when making an edit. Would there be any way to take some of the information about Galloway onto seperate pages? Ryan Postlethwaite 09:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is indeed huge. I think it might benefit if the "allegations" and "controversies" and "charges" that have not been borne out as factual by court judgements or solid journalistic investigations were offloaded to a separate page. There are a lot of them. DanielM 10:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC) And perhaps some of the quotes "Fallujah is a Guernica" etc. could be offloaded to his WikiQuotes. DanielM 10:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Friction Books

{{editprotected}}

In 2005 Galloway established Friction Books [24], an imprint for fiction and non-fiction, with longstanding associate Ron McKay [25]. Though Friction claimed its purpose was to publish "books that burn, books that cause controversy and get people talking", it only released the Paco Ignacio Taibo II novel An Easy Thing [26].

 Not done per "this template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request." If the edit you are requesting is controversial I won't make the change unless a consensus in support exists first. Please make sure anything you propose includes no original research or personal opinion and is cited to reliable sources. Feel free to replace the template when you have finished your request. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Facebook (and by extension myspace)

Considering the amount of fake profiles on facebook (indeed the one linked to has a disclaimer on it pointing not to the official site, but to a myspace site which also isn't linked to from the official site) I fail to see any backing for the facebook (and by extension this myspace site) to be included as "official" links. As there doesn't appear to be backlinks from the "proper" web site, both could be fakes. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for disruptive Sock Puppeteers - show them no mercy!

I've just discovered that MarkThomas has been put on 'probation'. It has been proven without doubt he is LiberalViews and Sarah Williams! You can read the evidence - it's conclusive! He has used both 'sock puppets' to push his own line on these pages. Over a year ago (when I joined Wikipedia) he helped completely put me off the whole thing - I didn’t have much fight at he time, and literally left appalled! He accused me of being a 'sock puppet' as soon as I joined (I actually had to look it up!) And now I find he is one, and probably was one all along! I'm back in WP now - and I know I won't be putting up with behaviour like this. I’m going for a tough line anyway. Let's not let this happen so easily to others!

My point is - we mustn’t tolerate people who are clearly disruptive (as he has been for over a year at least!). People like him are tireless and can cause huge damage - to what is already a difficult medium, to say the least. I can't believe he is pushing the same line over a year on! He clearly doesn't trust people to make their own minds up, and so is willing to cheat to make it up for them. Not exactly a Wikipedia ideal. (and rather ironic given his fascination with calling people Stalinists!). --Matt Lewis 08:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

I've never seen so many external links on one man, just like the article, this section is too long, I may edit later but if someone can do it before me, feel free to remove a few of them. Highcount. 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Braintax

British rapper Braintax has audio clips from Galloway's speeches on two of his songs, "The Grip Again" and "Syriana Style". Does this deserve any mention on this article? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

BBC Newsnight 09/01/2008

George Galloway made an appearance on BBC Newsnight this evening. I just want to congratulate him for being the only person on television to speak out about what is really happening and what George Bush is really doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.225.116 (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several phrases that could afford increased clarity,....

I've attempted to fix some.

One of the others is "...and sixteen other members of the National Council, issued an invitation to a Respect Renewal conference, organized on the same day and time as the scheduled Respect conference." What, when, whom,....?

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 14:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

External links section

It seems that this section has really grown abit and should not be a links farm, [27]. I had removed some links but was asked to come here first. The geocities link should defineately go as self published. The couchtripper is some "unofficial" forum and would fall under the same? The youtube links are also questionable. Per WP:EL, External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies. Do we need a video of all these speeches, ect?? Anyways, I have tagged the section as well and will work here. TIA --Tom 17:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)ps I see that this has been an issue for awhile, brought up by different editors? --Tom 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

'some unofficial forum'? I gave it the moniker of 'unofficial' because it is not officially endorsed by Galloway and I don't want there to be confusion amongst users. It is also the only forum that I know of which is setup directly to discuss his position and politics.

In future, maybe you should go and check things first. The link was there for over a year and only edited today for the first time.

Couchtripper (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I did go check it out. It really doesn't matter how long it has been listed, that is irrelevant to whether it complies with wiki policy and should remain. I will not delete it for now until there is more discussion but I still think the EL should be seriously cleaned up, that link included. Anyways, --Tom 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree the EL section needs a thorough clean up, the CouchTripper link should remain. CouchTripper is easily the biggest archive of Galloway related video and audio on the net, not just some pointless fan-site. -- Kate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.200.201 (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Thorne evidence

21stCenturyBuoy is continually adding material suggesting that Oliver Thorne's evidence to Parliament proves that Galloway deliberately misled Parliament. But it should be noted that, in his evidence, Thorne appears not even to have considered the claim made by Galloway and Socialist Worker: that Galloway's purported signature was later fraudulently added to an otherwise genuine document. RolandR (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We cannot be biased here. We have to wait for judgements and not report every detail by every witness either - WP is not a newspaper, or a moral guardian. It's not for us to decide that any fellow has proven anything. The guy has only every posted on this page anyway - and all that kind of stuff.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of a claim by Socialist Worker is far more biased than an independent epert employed by Galloways lawyers and Parliament. Galloway has never claimed anything anyway. He refused to see the documents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.122.208 (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Look if you will at Wikipedia:Original_research. If you can cite a story on it you will get somewhere. What you cannot do is research someone's statement, and then 'report' on it. Wikipeida is NOT a newspaper (Wikipedia is not a... News report). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have two sources that are bad, adding an empty third one like this won't make them good. Your '3rd source' merely mentions Thorne's name - and it's just the Daily Telegraph! You are acting like you're onto some great coo! Because you are using an old ID, you've manage to slip through the abuse net.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not a coup. It just reveals a fact that two years before the Socialist Worker article was written Galloway had had the documents analysed by a man who cofirmed they were authentic.21stCenturyBuoy (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC) i have now added a quote from the most recent biography of Galloway. Taking this out will be vandalism.