Talk:George Galloway/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

RfC: George Galloway's position in the 2016 US election

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No Consensus #2 will be removed. People who participated in this RFC noted that #2 was particularly objectionable. Weighing the arguments for #1 vs. neither, there is almost an equal split, and there were concerns about due weight and notability for the #1 to be entered into the article. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Which of the following two versions should be included in the article? Indicate your preference: #1, #2 or Neither. Ranked preferences are also ok. 17:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

---

#1

2016 US presidential election

In the 2016 US presidential election, George Galloway supported US Green Party candidate Jill Stein. On the major party candidates, Galloway said variously: "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster." and "I believe both Trump and Clinton are as dangerous as each other".

---

#2

Donald Trump

In the 2016 presidential election, Galloway favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, saying "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster."

---

Survey

• Support #1 (#2 is not acceptable; neither would be better than #2): We should first say who Galloway supported (the answer is Jill Stein). We can then quote his feelings about the other two candidates. Galloway's attitude was, and has always been, "plague on both their houses". He did tweet on one occasion that "Trump is a monster, and Clinton is a bigger monster". This statement is duly noted in #1. He makes his position clear in the Irish Times source cited above, which talked to him directly, and didn't rely on tweets, like the Politico source does. And we can dispense with the argument that Galloway was somehow backtracking: he had an RT interview with Jill Stein in February 2016, and called her "the best candidate in the race".

  To spin these facts as Galloway saying that he "favors Trump over Clinton" is absurd. If I say that "Nazism is monstrous. Communism is even more monstrous. I am a liberal democrat." It would be absurd to spin this as "Kingsindian supports Nazism over Communism". #2 is a clear distortion of the facts and extremely misleading. In a multiparty democracy, people are allowed to support third party candidates without this kind of distortion of their views. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Neither version or highly modified version of #2. This RfC is nonsensical because #2 lacks reliably sourced info and #1 obfuscates and misrepresents Galloway. I made clear in a previous discussion on this that additional reliably sourced info could be added to #2, yet Kingsindian opted to present two flawed options rather than two options that concern the actual dispute that we had. The dispute is whether we should opt for #1 or a version of #2 that goes "In June 2016, Galloway said he favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster."[1] In September 2016, Galloway said his views on Trump and Clinton had been misrepresented, that he considered them "as dangerous as each other" and that he supported Jill Stein."[2] It's beyond my understanding why anyone would start a RfC that doesn't seek to resolve the actual differences. Totally bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support #1. The other version is a double WP:BLP/WP:SYNTH violation. The talk page discussion above says it all.Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• It has already been pointed out to this user that Politico characterizes Galloway's views as "[Galloway] says he prefers Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton."[3] The accusation of WP:SYNTH is dishonest. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support #1. Galloway has been quite consistent that both Trump and Hillary are abhorrent. See this interview with Jill Stein for Galloway lambasting Trump's numerous faults. It's absurd to say he "supports" or "favours" Trump over Clinton. --NSH001 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC) BTW the interview is only 13mins, not 25mins as Snoogans wrote below. --NSH001 (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support #1. agree with this position, We should first say who Galloway supported (the answer is Jill Stein). We can then quote his feelings about the other two candidates - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• #1, possibly modified. #2 is totally unacceptable; it would be knowingly introducing a lie into the article. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to deliberately mislead people into believing something that is the opposite of the truth. Galloway did not "support", nor even "favour" Trump; he supported Jill Stein. RolandR (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support #1, per above. Rwendland (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support #1, which is the more balanced. It seems to represent his position. It is absurd not to include the candidate whom he does support. From the sources , he did not consistently prefer Trump to Clinton. DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support #1, which states that Galloway supported Stein and then gives his position on the other two candidates. I thought we could only choose 1 or 2. The fact that some are choosing Neither makes me to change my post. I agree with those who said Neither. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Neither or #1. Use of 'favored' is obvious SYNTH and would need much better sourcing and inclusion of the "whole story". But even #1 could be edited down - what's the big significance of a fringe-ish UK figure who doesn't even have a vote in the US, and whose support would probably be the kiss-of-death to either candidate anyway? The thing that GG appeared to agree with was that Trump's ideas "had no chance of being implemented," whereas HC's had - which made her more dangerous to the world in his mind. Pincrete (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Why not both? - Why couldn't we just mention both? They don't seem mutually exclusive. NickCT (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

In the 2016 US presidential election, George Galloway supported US Green Party candidate Jill Stein. On the major party candidates, Galloway said variously: "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster." and "I believe both Trump and Clinton are as dangerous as each other". He favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, saying "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster."

• Neither Galloway has no doubt had strong positions on countless elections, and he has likely voiced his opinion on most of them. Why are we assuming that his thoughts on this particular election are so much more important than the others that they warrant an entry on his Wikipedia page? What makes this one noteworthy over the rest? Kerdooskis (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Neither. An encyclopaedic biography should never be a WP:SYNTH of speeches or media interviews, not least because these sources are neither secondary nor independent from the subject. To describe political views of a politician we should only use reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. I remind everyone to steer clear of SYNTH and that improperly sourced statements can be deleted. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support #1 per Kingsindian. Although I slightly prefer a shortened version "In the 2016 US presidential election, George Galloway supported US Green Party candidate Jill Stein. On the major party candidates, Galloway said: "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster." (Summoned by bot) HouseOfChange (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Neither. - Galloway's opinion, comment, on a America election is not worthy of a mention in his biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Neither Too trivial since Galloway is not resident in the U.S. or a citizen. TFD (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• neither (Summoned by bot) per SNoogans. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support #1 per Kingsindian. This is far more accurate, especially when you consider that few people, including Clintonites, thought Trump could win.
• Both: I think a summary like the one NickCT presents is fair. It shows that he's not a Trump supporter, but that he prefers him to Clinton. That fact seems notable to mention. --Bangalamania (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Neither. Galloway's views on the US election are as notable as a sparrow's fart. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

See discussion here. Further comments can be added below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

References

If Galloway says that Stein is the best candidate in the race, then you need to note the time that he does it in that 25-minute RT interview (because I'm certainly not gonna watch a 25-minute Galloway-Stein interview), and then we can indeed add "In February 2016, Galloway said that he considered Stein the "best candidate" in the 2016 election to option #B. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

As for Galloway's comment on Stein, here's a Youtube video of the interview. The quoted comment comes at the very start.

As for the format of the RfC, please don't lecture me about how to start RfCs. I have opened plenty of RfCs in my time, and this one is completely proper. It follows all the guidelines: it has a short, neutral, clear header, and asks a concrete question instead of waffling about. It juxtaposes the text currently in the article (which you wrote, and has no consensus, btw), with a concrete suggestion for improvement. Let people comment on what they prefer. If people say: neither one, then so be it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it doesn't resolve the dispute. If people vote overwhelmingly for #A and that version gets inserted into the article, then I'll just edit in my proposed changes, because there won't have been any RfC on what my actual changes would look like. You do realize this? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You are free to edit in your changes after this RfC finishes, but that does not mean that they will get consensus to stay in. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, so your RfC is completely pointless and a waste of everyone's time. Unless, the intent is to willfully introduce flawed text and then edit-war to keep improvements out of the article under the false appearance of "consensus"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You say it's "flawed", so it's flawed? Or, are you already admitting that the result of the RfC can only go one way -- and that is #1? In that case, I will be happy to close this in favour of #1 right now, and then we can discuss whether that text should be replaced by your version. If you get consensus for your version, I'll be happy for it to be included. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that "favored" should be used instead of "supported." AFAIK, Galloway did not contribute to, campaign for or vote for any of the candidates. If we mention this, we should also mention that in the election eight years ago, Galloway said he favored Kucinich, but would have voted for Obama over Clinton, since Kucinich could not win. TFD (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

pp-dispute removal after ArbCom case?

Now that the Arbitration Committee BLP case has closed 4 days ago, does anyone have any idea when the pp-dispute template will be removed from the article so editing can restart? There is some impt backlog edits to be done (eg see above). Rwendland (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it just needs a request at WP:RFPP Govindaharihari (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 September 2018

Since the dispute about this article has been resolved, please remove the protection template so editing may proceed. Thank you. Dayirmiter (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I have lowered protection — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2018

Can we change the 'party' field from 'Independent (politician)' to the canonical link 'Independent politician'. This is to allow for easier use of the structured data. Thank you. 2A00:23C5:318B:E200:C069:B4ED:C36F:4BF8 (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Rwendland (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 07 February 2019

The current header describes Galloway as "A long-standing associate of Jeremy Corbyn", but this is not supported by the text in the Guardian article that is used as a reference. The article describes them as "fellow members of the parliamentary left’s awkward squad: war-opposers, all-purpose leadership-defiers, anti-Blairites incarnate", but this is a description of their views and actions not a common membership in actual "awkward squad". 81.154.149.167 (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I have removed that part of the sentence in the header.Burrobert (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Assault in 2014

I think there is too much information about this.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I will trim it a bit. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Galloway's alleged support of Trump over Clinton

This statement is wrong, for the simple reason that it is an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. If Galloway says that Trump is a monster and Clinton is a bigger monster; it need not mean that he supports one over the other. It can mean that he supports neither one. A couple of news reports did interpret his comments as saying the former, but he clearly meant the latter.

This is made clear in this article in The Irish Times, straight from the horse's mouth.

On the US presidential election, Mr Galloway supports US Green Party candidate Jill Stein, but said he was misrepresented in recent reports suggesting he was in favour of US Republican party presidential candidate Donald Trump.

“I believe both Trump and Clinton are as dangerous as each other,” he said.

I suggest replacing the paragraph by the following:

In the 2016 US election, George Galloway supported US Green Party candidate Jill Stein. On the major party candidates, Galloway said variously: "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster." and "I believe both Trump and Clinton are as dangerous as each other". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

We can add the sentence "Galloway later backtracked, saying he considered Trump and Clinton equally dangerous. Galloway said he supported US Green Party candidate Jill Stein."„Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I find it very interesting how many people are trying to assassinate this man's character because of his disagreement with zionism - a form of ethnonationalism that has resulted in apartheid. Disgusting. Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No, that's absurd. There's no indication that he supported Trump in the first place, and where does this "backtracking" language come from? His first statement is largely consistent with the second one; it's just a clarification that he supports neither candidate.

If I say that communism is monstrous and Nazism is even more monstrous, and moreover that I am (a Liberal or Conservative or Social Democrat or Anarchist or Green); one wouldn't spin this declaration as "Kingsindian supports communism over Nazism". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

One candidate is preferable over another candidate =/= both candidates are equally bad. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? In a multiparty system, people are allowed to support third-party candidates. This is absurd spin. Here's an interview between Galloway and Jill Stein from Feb 2016, before the tweet in the Politico article. In this interview, he says that Stein is the best candidate in the race, and calls Trump a "fascist". That is supporting Trump? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

We can add too to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree with Kingsindian here; saying that Galloway supports Trump is just being silly (at best). --NSH001 (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Text never said he supported Trump. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The quote about Galloway considering Clinton to be "more dangerous than Trump" is already present in my version (see the second sentence). It is what Galloway said, minus the absurd spin of "Galloway supported Trump over Clinton", which is the current text. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The current text says: "In the 2016 presidential election, Galloway favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, saying "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster."" This reflects what Galloway said, and it reflects what the RS says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue over this any more, since you're obviously not going to change your mind. <Wikilawyering mode: ON> The current text should be removed per WP:ONUS, because it is both wrong and misleading, and has no consensus. I proposed a new text that can be implemented or not, based on consensus. I don't much care if the latter happens, but the former should be done. Unfortunately, the page is locked, otherwise I would have done it myself. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Can someone put up an admin edit request for this to be included, since it has consensus (in clude me)?

In the 2016 US election, George Galloway supported US Green Party candidate Jill Stein. On the major party candidates, Galloway said variously: "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster." and "I believe both Trump and Clinton are as dangerous as each other". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

As it is the locked in page is a WP:BLP violation in making an inference about Galloway's fantasied support of Trump not in the source, and therefore should be removed immediately by the supervising admin. Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

There is not consensus for that version. Galloway said he favored Trump over Clinton, and then later said that they were equally dangerous. The text should reflect that he backtracked. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me do some elementary arithmetic.

For the WP:BLP/WP:OR violation

• Snooganssnoogans

For Kingsindian's emendation which sticks to the known facts, and removed the BLP/OR violation

• Kingsindian; NSH001; Nishidani

I.e. You are on your own against three editors, The consensus is for removal, and replacement of the defective piece by the passage crafted by Kingsindian. Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No, BLP demands that we adhere to reliable sources. BLP also requires that we don't whitewash and misrepresent content. Galloway clearly says he favored Trump over Clinton and later that he considered them equal. Why noting that simple fact is problematic for you, I do not know. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The reliable sourece does not support your strategic manipulation of its text. It states five things:

• (1)“Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump.”
• (2) Galloway continued on Twitter, attacking Clinton as unable to compete in a general election with Trump.
• (3) He urged Sanders, who like Galloway’s Respect Party backs a policy agenda based in democratic socialism, to run a third-party campaign for president with Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein as his running mate.
• (4) “Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster. And he is sure going to monster her,” Galloway wrote in a second tweet.
• (5)“Sanders should run as an Independent with @DrJillStein as his running mate @SenSanders,” he posted minutes later.

In boiling this down to

*In the 2016 presidential election, Galloway favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, saying "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster

You have deliberately distorted the source and misrepresented the facts on Wikipedia.

The evidence in your source shows without a shadow of ambiguity, in the 2016 elections Galloway did not favour Trump over Clinton. He (a) attacked Clinton as incompetent to run against Trump,(b) stated both were monsters; (c) said Trump, the lesser monster, would get the better of Clinton, and (d)advised Sanders to run against both.

This is clear-cut. Three editors can see the obvious, and your distortion, with no third party backing, is the one that, injuriously, remains on the page. Disgraceful. (And I have no brief for Galloway).Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If you can't comprehend that "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump" means one is worse than the other, then I don't know what I can do for you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Only an illerate or a malevolent editor can spin that to mean

*In the 2016 presidential election, Galloway favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton

Learn to read, or stay off this page.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Politico: "[Galloway] says he prefers Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton."[4] It's weird how RS happen to agree with me on this. But yeah, I'm the one who needs to learn to read. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: There's no use in arguing with people if they aren't going to change their mind. I have opened an RfC below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen someone screw up a RfC as badly as yours. You do realize that an RfC is supposed to resolve a dispute? You don't even seem to understand what this dispute is about. Bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding link to archived RFC. Please do not archive this while civility and copyright violations issues are being discussed at WP:ANI. -- SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Abruptly leaves meeting in Oxford, February 2013

We do not need a whole subsection about this. One sentence would be enough.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Wives

How can Galloway have married Rima Husseini in 2005 when he was still married to Amineh Abu-Zayyad until 2009? If he married Husseini only in an Islamic ceremony, it will not have ever had legal force in the UK, in which case she was never his wife and should be removed from the "Spouse(s)" section of the infobox; if it was a civil marriage, then he would have been guilty of bigamy (and the Husseini marriage would still have been void).

To my knowledge, Wikipedia does not endorse "non-marriages" (i.e. putative marriages or marriage-like ceremonies that provably have no legal force) being listed as marriages in this way, in which case Husseini should be removed.

--Vabadus91 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

In the current source for his marriage to Amineh Abu-Zayyad marriage, Maya Wolfe-Robinson in The Guardian seems to ask the same question. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It says he married his current wife in a religious ceremony and then married her in a civil ceremony after his divorce. So there is nothing ambiguous about his current marital statue. I do not see any reason to mention that his religious marriage was not recognized under English law, but his consequent civil marriage was. TFD (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I am still confused, unless he was a bigamist. Zezen (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 6 June 2019

this whole articvle should be edited to paint a clearer non biased picture of him and what he has not as anti-semtic canon where he is portrayed as the perscuted victim of a "zionist" conspricy. If you think i am wrong replace every time isreal and jewish people are mentioned with palestinan and islam and vice versa and see if it does not read like it was written by a member of teh alt-right— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofan1978 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't make any specific requests backed up with reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Well you could start by reverting a few changes made each day by the banned paid shill. Do you think that would help? or should I quote George:

"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington[Wikipedia], but for a lawyer[Editor] you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice[conflict of interest]. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever having written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever, and you call that justice." - George Galloway, Senate hearing (17 May 2005). No, let Wikipedias damaged reputation stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.254.26.9 (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Conflict With Robert Maxwell

It seems to me that George Galloway exposing Robert Maxwell as an agent of Mossad, (or at least his accusation of that), with Maxwell’s death following a couple of weeks later, would be a topic that warrants inclusion in this article.

Is there any reason it has not been included?

Rantedia (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably because you didn't include it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Police Scotland 'looking into' George Galloway's Queen of the South visit

• https://www.thenational.scot/news/18973063.police-scotland-looking-into-george-galloways-queen-south-visit/
• https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/dec/28/george-galloway-trip-to-queen-of-the-south-set-to-end-in-charge-for-club-scottish-football
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55462633
• https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/george-galloway-probed-cops-after-23229697
• https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18972196.queen-south-apologises-george-galloway-upset/
• https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/scottish/george-galloway-queen-of-the-south-tier-4-b1779430.html

Not sure where to include this

John Cummings (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your first source says:

"POLICE Scotland has spoken to the football club which allowed George Galloway to attend despite strict level 4 Covid regulations, but will take no further action on the matter, according to a police spokesperson.

"The spokesperson had previously said police were “looking into” George Galloway’s attendance at a Boxing Day football match amid concerns Covid rules were ignored."

So it is incorrect to say that the police are looking into this, since they no longer are. At this point, I don't see the story has any significance.

TFD (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

There is some WP:NOTNEWS here and it wouldn't be notable enough for a mention unless further action was taken, but it looks like Galloway had a bit of a lucky let off as Scotland is in Level 4 Covid restrictions and the visit to the match was in breach of these rules.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

George Galloway

Galloway’s mother was born in Scotland. So could the (personal attack deleted) with wrote she is Irish remove this. Dronley1 (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

George Galloway

George Galloway’s mother was born in Scotland not Ireland. Why the lies? Dronley1 (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Why the lies? Well....something to do, isn’t it, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.147.139 (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The article text says "Sheila (née Reilly), who is of Irish descent". It doesn't say that she was born in Ireland. Maybe the wording could be a bit clearer, but it isn't outright wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No it says “Irish Mother” stop lying. Dronley1 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok it says that now because it’s been changed, good. But previously it did say that she was Irish which is false, good. Dronley1 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

Unnecessary use of quotes "Unbelievably controversial, and I did it without preparing people properly for the storm" Ravo98 (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the whole statement, along with some more puffery and unnecessary "later, he recalled, ..." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2022

George Galloway’s mother is not Irish but Scots born, her father was Irish. I’ve stated this before. Why continue to lie about it? 188.30.199.47 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Galloway's website says "His mother, Sheila O’Reilly, is of Irish background from the town of Granard". I'm not sure this means that she was actually born in Ireland, although some people might conclude this. What we need here is a reliable secondary source. I've removed this from the WP:LEAD because it is contentious, but left in the part saying that his mother was of Irish descent.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Russia Today

IMO Galloway's own programme on RT should be included in the summary, as it may shed a completely different light on his current media and political activity, regardless of his own intent. 2A02:A31C:35F:5180:58A4:436B:2C91:DF6F (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, what does "regardless of his own intent" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.79 (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2024 (2)

In the ref "name=Scotsman2003", please add "archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120503010749/http://www.scotsman.com/news/indefatigably-yours-1-648573 |archive-date=3 May 2012 |url-status=dead". The link is not dead as such, but it redirects to a different story from 2016. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:BD50:1D29:3101:8143 (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting us know. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2024 (3)

George Galloway's majority should be fixed to be 18.4% rather than the 39.7% listed on the article as this is not consistent with other UK MP articles Locked641 (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2024

The infobox is wrong he was elected on the 1st March 2024 94.197.57.10 (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done: The 2024 Rochdale by-election was held on 29 February 2024, but as usual the votes were not counted and the result announced until the early morning hours of 1 March.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Ianmacm 1 March is when the votes were counted, but all votes were in their boxes by 10pm 29 February, at which point the result is set in stone, only adjudication of the votes takes place subsequently, before the Returning officer announces the final result. If there was a horse race and the stewards looked into the result, it doesn't alter the time of the end of the race, whatever their final decision.

  There is a different argument to be had, on whether he is a MP until he swears the oath of allegiance to the King (likely to be Monday) in Parliament on the 4 March 2024.However if you look at

Tony Blair's biography he assumed office on Thursday 9 June 1983 (as an MP) the polling day, not the results day. For consistency 29 February is the day he won the seat. Jaymailsays (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For the purposes of a Wikipedia article, a member of parliament is elected on the day of the election.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Haniyeh

Connection

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7939480.stm Pendragon (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Wars

@spagooder You appear to be involved in an editing war over, "he has been accused of using anti-Semitic tropes" A well sourced quote that you removed, you risk being suspended if you do not reinstate the previous edit.https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/01/uk/britain-galloway-byelection-intl/index.html

In addition his sacking from TalkRadio.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/03/talkradio-sacks-george-galloway Jaymailsays (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey. Those topics are addressed in the article here, here, and here. It's unnecessary and counter-productive to ham-fist them like so, where you kept deleting half the paragraph in your attempts to do it.

As for your threat, I've read the relevant WP policies several times over and act accordingly, I encourage you to do the same and not use misrepresentation. Spagooder (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Accusation of Fascism

Reliable source:

https://www.fr.de/meinung/kommentare/waschechter-nazi-92864844.html 2A02:3030:A02:EFFC:AB3F:9802:BD57:5796 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The source is 'reliable' only in as much as it presumably accurately reflects the opinion of its author. And given a lack of evidence that anyone else holds the same rather confused opinion (the author seems to think that Nazis and Bolsheviks are one and the same) it is of no significance to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)