Talk:George Galloway/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about George Galloway. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

This is an archived discussion please do not edit

netrality1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Views section

My proposed redrafting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exile 13:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quotes section

I have added back the Quotes section GrahamN removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

netrality1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality2

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

That may be, but please don't go deleting bits of articles you don't like. If you think something makes an unsubstanciated claim, please post on the talk page first, requesting cites. If those aren't forthcoming in a few days, then it's reasonable to edit out the obviously outlying claims. As it is, you've removed the "victory to the intifada" thing, which George is well known for saying. Here, after about one minutes searching, is a typical transcript of one of his speeches [6]. I've heard him say it myself, in the flesh. I know it, and the Arafat/Lenin bit, look like they were inserted by smearmonkering rightwingers, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily false. Please be more respectful of other people's hard work, rather than just zapping stuff. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)