Talk:George Galloway/Archive 2

message: I think this is a good article and could be a featured article with a little bit of work. The objections to it currently being a fetured article (listed at Featured article candidates/George Galloway) are:
* Not enough clarity on status 3 of the images. 2 fair use and one 'non-commercial'. According to Stephen Turner the first image rellies on a dubious fair use claim as the article is not about Newsnight.
* Needs to be better structured.
* Needs more information on his time as an Labour MP.
The first two shouldn't be to hard to sort out and the third is just a matter of finding some more info'. --JK the unwise 16:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced :Image:George_Galloway_MP.jpg with :Image:George Galloway.png which is from promotional material released during the election so as I understand it is a better candidate for fair use claim.--JK the unwise 16:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me JK. I am never happy with TV screen captures (fair use issues notwithstanding), and they are never of adequate quality. It also follows the Manual of Style more faithfully as he is looking in towards the body of the article. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC 

message: See this article. Adraeus 00:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I read your post after adding a section on this from a BBC news article. If you think there is any more relavant info' from the Scotsman paper to add, please add it.--JK the unwise 12:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I posted that link, I had not found any mention of it, so this link was simply information for the contributors to this article. By the way, I don't think this article mentions any of Galloway's television and cable appearances (e.g., Galloway on Real Time HBO with Bill Maher) Adraeus 14:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  News on corruption allegations 

message: The Campaign Group has been open about its membership, and a check on membership lists through the years shows no G. Galloway among them. Unless he joined for a brief period it seems that he was not a member. David | Talk 22:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This maybe so but "Despite his left-wing reputation.." is not a NPOV way to put it.--JK the unwise 17:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. However there is a point to be made about that - George Galloway's pronouncements now and allegiance with the far left may give the impression that he was on the very far left of the Labour Party during his time in it, but this was not the case at the time. Galloway was on the left but not the far left, and not among the most rebellious. Incidentally he didn't join the Tribune Group either. David | Talk 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On the [[Socialist Campaign Group|Campaign Group]]

message: Some time ago I uploaded some images concerning the evidence of presented to the commitee of Galloway's alleged involvement in the Oil for Food programme. I am distressed that Juicifier decided to delete these images along with the body of text that a large number of users had helped edit - wholesale. Please DO NOT delete large parts of the article without discussion. It shows bad faith! Jooler 07:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, wholesale deletion absent discussion shows arrogance and bad faith, especially when it is a section that has been there for a while and was no doubt the product of much careful editing and back and forth among editors when it was originally authored. I am glad you were watching and restored that bit. I think it is a good bit with interesting, unusual graphics of those suspect documents. Galloway has been impugned with forged documents previously such as those the Christian Science Monitor relied on and later had to apologize for. So it's good to address this stuff. DanielM 01:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but you're the one who is talking nonsense. I don't know what you mean about three days; the section was there for months before you came along. This paragraph was the subject of a great deal of debate here. See the archives.  The SWP article, brought the issue to my attention and I copied the relevant pages from the original Duelfer report to Wikipedia. I am certainly not an organ of the SWP. I and several other authors spent quite some time arguing the toss over the wording. The paragraph is using the very same evidence that was used against Galloway at the comittee hearing, i.e. his name appearing on some documents, and merely highlighting the some details about the so-called evidence that has not been highlighted in the mainstream media. You are quite wrong to say that "a rehashing of an article on the SWP website." because the SWP page doesn't demonstrate all of the inconsistencies of the evidence as this article does. I and several other authors have looked at the original documents in detail - There is no POV position here. The reader can make up their mind as to the significance or otherwise of the inconsistencies. Read the archives and see how the paragraph evolved. Jooler 07:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just noticed that this page does not appear to have been archived correctly. I was looking for the debate regarding the Duelfer report pages. It is not in the archive given above, but is on this page when I look back at a version from August. I don't have time to sort this out. Jooler 07:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Whole section removed - why?

message: Unfortunately I don't have the full results here but the candidates in the CLP section (for seven seats) included Jack Ashley, Stuart Bell, Tony Benn, David Blunkett, Tam Dalyell, George Galloway, Eric Heffer, Gerald Kaufman, Michael Meacher, Austin Mitchell, Giles Radice, Jo Richardson, George Robertson, Dennis Skinner and Audrey Wise. There were certainly others. Galloway's position as next to last is important as demonstrating his popularity within the Labour Party generally at the time. David | Talk 10:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone who is interested the full results are available in Labour Party Annual Conference Report 1986. David | Talk 17:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Labour Party NEC election, 1986

message: Please see Almanac of British Politics by Waller, 5th ed., page 385: "Soon after election in 1987 he .. suffered no-confidence votes in his constituency party". David | Talk 17:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion of no confidence

message: To better explan my reply to Fergie above, see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). From the latter:
:The opening paragraph should give:
:#Name(s) and title(s), if any (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles))
:#Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death)
:#Nationality
:#What they did
:#Why they are significant.
The fourth and fifth are the most important for the casual reader. David | Talk 14:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Manual of Style

message: I've added Galloway's visits to Saddam to the intro, because as it stood, it sounded as though all he had done was campaign against sanctions and say something untoward during the war. In fact, he did a lot more than that, and a selection of highlights should really be in the intro. The two visits definitely need to be mentioned, and his statement during the first: I forget the words but "I salute your courage and strength" or something, because it was a pivotal moment for many people in their evaluation of Galloway.
I also tried to tidy up the dates. The MoS says we should wikify only when we write out the full date i.e. December 2, 2005, because that allows date preferences to work. However, there's no point in wikifying 2005, or December 2, or December, when they stand alone. Also, some of the dates are written December 2, 2005 and others 2 December 2005. I didn't want to change them because I don't know what you all prefer, but it should be consistent. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fergie reverted without explanation, saying only "see talk," but has left no message on talk. Fergie, could you please say why you're deleting this? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Talk:George_Galloway/Archive_1#Met_Saddam_Twice_in_Intro_Paragraph_or_Not.3F and Talk:George_Galloway#The_visitation_of_Saddam.  I think that is probably what Fergie was referring to.  AlistairMcMillan 10:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Alistair. I'll read through them. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's badly placed. He was expelled for what the Labour Party regarded as behavior that brought the party into disrepute and his campaign against sanctions wasn't part of that. However, I think it probably should be in the intro somewhere, because it's one of the things he's well known for. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My edits

message: This article has been flagged as too long ever since May when Galloway appeared before the US senate. I suggest the sections not directly dependant on George Galloway be linked to separate articles- in particular Oil for Food and Miriam Appeal. This will also have the benefit that the other individuals involved can be directly linked to these episodes.
We might also be more ruthless in cutting down the lengthy and unedifying passages such as 2005 election. There tends to be a bit too much 'he said/she said' and not enough overview.Fergie 10:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortening of the article

message: I also think we should include in the intro the quote that was potentially the most serious trigger regarding his Labour Party expulsion, namely saying that British troops should refuse to obey orders. An intro should give an overview of what the average person in the street would say if asked what they knew about Galloway (not only that, of course, because they wouldn't know his date of birth, for example), but it should definitely include the issues that he is best known for, and I'm not sure this intro quite does that. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reference for that quote we can dig up?  The current reference we have  is the one in which he directly accuses Blair of lying, but I don't see anything in that interview calling for troops to refuse to obey orders. --Delirium 10:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I see it's already quoted and sourced in the relevant section further down on the page. --Delirium 10:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro again

message: The full text of the charges on which Galloway was expelled are in the Bookmarks pamphlet "The Trial" which I have at home. I think it's important not to imply that Galloway was expelled merely for opposing the war, which you will find often said by people (139 Labour MPs opposed the war, only one was expelled). David | Talk 11:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well no, he was expelled not for opposing the war (quite a few labour MPs did that), but for making a fuss about it. Sandpiper 21:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expulsion from the Labour Party

message: How do we fit into the article his being on Celebrity Big Brother?
Surely it should go in there somewhere.
from my own POV the meeting of the two worst things in the universe deserves an article of its own, but atleast a NPOV mention of the fact should suffice.
i think we need another section on celebrity big brother, i think i'll be biting the intellectual bullet and watching it! just because galloway's on i really HOPE he doesnt make as much of a fool of himself as he usually does on tv, he's a unique politician and has a lot of good ideas. Just wish he wouldnt be such a complete jerk all the time (i've seen him on have i got news for you, that more4 talk show, and newsnight - maybe his good side will come out in the big brother house? O.o that's if there is one obviously)--Sean2k2 20:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've restored it. If you believe that the pictures do not improve the article, you need to argue the case. Additionally, you need to source a controversial statement such as that critics of George Galloway's are mostly "New Labour MPs who voted for the war", you will need to cite a source. As this is such a controversial topic, unsourced controversial claims are likely to be removed.  As you point out, this should include the line about the catchphrase. Warofdreams talk 17:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrity Big Brother 

message: I have an interesting question: Erskine May says that "In the absence of any specific orders to that effect, Members are presumed to be in attendence in Parliament. It is not now considered necessary for a Member to be given leave of absence in the ordinary course of his business." (Erskine May, 23rd Edition, p 208. On what ground would Celebrity BB constitute the "ordinary course of his business"? (Although cf. p. 207 "On ordinary occasions the attendence of Members in Parliament is not enforced by either House.")
:While the House of Commons retains the technical power to command the attendance of its members, the last time this power was exercised was something like 300 years ago IIRC. David | Talk 00:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Galloway asserts, apparently sincerely, that his participation in the Big Brother program is an effort to engage a section of the electorate that would not normally take an interest in public policy. He intends to use his time on the program to discuss Iraq, Palestine, and poverty with the other contestants in an effort to promote his own viewpoint on these matters. Many MPs in the House of Commons have other jobs that impinge on their parlimentary responsibilities to a far greater degree (assuming that participation in BB is outwith the realm of parlimentary responsibility), so it is unlikely that Galloway would be reprimanded. The most interesting aspect of his residencency in the Big Brother house is that Ofcom will force channel 4 to censor him if he is deemed to be making a party-political broadcast- is this democratic? Fergie 21:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a good summary of the democratic perils of gagging Galloway here--Fergie 09:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think space could be found in the article for pointing out that when George Galloway claims he went into the house to use it as a soapbox, the rules about British broadcasting make this impractical and would result in the programme being taken off the air. David | Talk 21:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't they say there's no such thing as bad publicity? He is making the news again. Sandpiper 07:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficult to do without violating NPOV, although a Guardian article has touched on this issue, and its citation might alleviate this problem to some degree. Philip Cross 00:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea but unfortunately news programs can get away with that because the journalist / presenter will question the politician & provide an alternative POV. No-one in the CBB house is filling that role & so C4 would be liable to fining if they broadcast Galloway talking political. On his exit Davina will be able to interrogate him politically but I'm afraid that will be all we get. Though he did get a piece in C4 news today so he's not doing all bad.MGSpiller 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still seems to me that similar arguments could be made about televising party  conferences, which are just a whole week of one party views. The situation now seems to be that critics are having the right to make their say, yet the man himself has no right to comment. If he had the financial resources to stage a week long party conference that would be OK to report essentially continuously? Sandpiper 20:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting issue on participation in BB 

message: "Ron McKay, spokesman for Galloway, revealed that if he won, he would give the prize money to Interpal, a Palestinian charity."
I'm pretty sure, because I watched the programme last night, that there is no prize money in CBB. Just an appearance fee. I don't know whether something to that effect is worth mentioning.Harry R 14:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the latest celeb one split a percentage of the phone voting money between the charities picked by all of the celebs, and I think I heard Davina say something about that yesterday Sadisticality 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of the money Galloway recieves from CBB (£60k) will go to the charity Interpal, the one which was cleared due to lack of *any* evidence . The same charity will also recieve a portion of the profits from phone calls. -- Tompsci 12:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BB 'prize money'?

message: Looking at the full voting record since the last election , I looked at the MPs below Galloway in % of voting. Discarding those in positions where they do not vote for organisational reasons (Speaker, Deputy Speakers), do not vote for political reasons (Sinn Fein), haven't been voting because they've been seriously ill and have now died (Patsy Calton and Rachel Squire, this leaves the three worst as Eddie McGrady (apologies to him if he is also unwell), Tony Blair and George Galloway. So his voting record is even worse than implied. Average Earthman 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eddie McGrady, as an SDLP member, doesn't normally vote on GB-only issues. Tony Blair does have the occasional issue that legitimately takes him out of the country. David | Talk 18:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all accounts though he has a worse record than his predecessors as PM.  Not much of a Parliamentarain.  Morwen - Talk 10:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before ejection from the Labour Party and his subsequent involvement took-off in the Anti-War Movement, his parliamentary record is pretty decent. It is only because of his constant touring, giving political speeches against the war (the main reason he was voted in as an MP), that his attendance has dropped significantly. -- Tompsci 00:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the Labour party no longer orders him to attend votes, as they do their other MPs. How many of them would attend if not obliged to for the benefit of their party rather than the benefit of their constituents? Sandpiper 20:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of Commons attendance 

message: I have removed two links because they like to websites so full of distortions and untruths, that they are useless. On the other hand the Cristopher Hitchen's pages, though anti-Galloway, are from a respectable source. This should not become a Galloway hate page, he's already hated by the media and unfairly treated, let us provide the most unbiased account we can.
The Links were:
* HangGalloway
* Iraq Labour Friends
 Tompsci 11:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article is better off without these links. Their idiocy bolsters support for Galloway. If the intention is to balance the article by linking to sites containing non-favourable POV, then higher quality critiques are required in the linked sites.--Fergie 09:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly, even though I think the Cristopher Hitchens coverage of the Oil for Food allogations is repulsively biased, it's probably one of the better anti-galloway attacks. I also think that it's a load of rubbish, but a point for point rebuttal is probably worth the effort. -- Tompsci 00:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: The article claims he is best known for his campaign to overturn sanctions against Iraq. This may once have been true (i.e., befor Iraq was invaded), but right now he is best known for total opposition to the entire British policy on Iraq, particularly the invasion of it, which is what caused his actual split from the party. This needs re-wording. Sandpiper 07:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a politician is best known for comes down to perspective. An American will know Galloway as the person who appeared before a senate committee, An Englishman will know him as the man who ousted his former party colleague, Oona King, from power, an Iraqi may know him as the humanitarian face of the British establishment, whilst a Scotsman will have many different episodes from which to draw an opinion. Who's perspective should we use? In a democracy, I think that a politician should be profiled principally from the perspective of his constituents. --Fergie 12:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be: "best known for being AWOL in the Big Brother House" then. The controversy does not seem to be abating. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he is topical because he went into Big Brother, which I would judge was his intent. He remains best known for his longstanding views. But if an article is going to claim someone is 'best known' for something, then that something ought to be universally accepted. e.g. Frank Whittle is best known for inventing the jet engine. Even in the whittle case the article does not claim 'best known'Sandpiper 20:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best known for? 

message: If you're going to mention the cat incident, then a better image should be included. However I think this incident has been given undue prominance. If you want to cover this in that level of detail, then equal, if not greater, prominance should be given to the political messages he has made in the house, bbut which have been censored. -- Tompsci 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this section now has way too much prominence and is descending to the level of tabloid commentary (notorious "naughty cat", for goodness sake). The cat reference and photograph should be removed. I don't think its possible to add much on Galloway's political messages from the house because, well, there have been virtually none AFAIK. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a prime example of the biased coverage in this article, I'm not sure I should edit it heavily because I am in the pro-Galloway camp. Alot of what Galloway says is censored, an analysis of BB coverage on E4 is here. -- Tompsci 16:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, Medialens. Celebrity Big Brother is not a politics show, and it's simply not possible for a broadcaster to include a balancing speech if George Galloway is allowed to expound on his views. So Channel 4 would be acting in breach of its licence if it did not remove openly political speeches made by George Galloway. Meanwhile the cat incident, although instigated by Endemol, has become a focus for criticism of him. David | Talk 16:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Medialens? Please explain ... The cat incident is tabloid level criticism, based on the percieved humiliation (real or otherwise) resulting from the incident. It is not valid political criticism of his actions in participating in the Big Brother event, and has no place in a political encyclopaedia entry I would argue. The show is not a political show, as you correctly point out, but this is a political article, not an entertainment one. Discussion of Galloway in the BB house should therefore be brief, succinct, and confined to political issues. In other words: he hoped to use it as a platform to expound his beliefs to a wider audience, Channel 4 are constrained by regulatory restrictions from permitting him to engage in lengthy political dialogue and he has been criticised for neglecting his parliamentary responsibilities. This section is already over-bloated, and the "notorious "naughty cat" incident" has no place here. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The OfCom regulations are very open to interpretation, they didn't censor his comment that Saddam Hussein was generally popular amoungst Iraqi people. Double standards? -- Tompsci 17:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how you can mention specific events in the BB house without giving them undue prominance. On the whole the media is biased against GG so as wikipedians we should try to avoid that bias. There are many valid critisisms of George Galloway, but what is broadcast from the big brother house is not an authorative source since much of what is said is censored. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip page. -- Tompsci 12:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The story is really the way the press has picked up on these things, and they are - for a time at least - a large part of the public's perception of Galloway.  If incidents in BB haven't been widely reported, then they're probably just gossip (e.g. allegations of bullying or nominations).  It may be inevitable that while BB is running this section will be unduly large, but issues which are soon forgotten can be removed equally quickly.  Rather than following the media or attempting to counter it, we should provide a summary alongside any relevant facts.  Broadcasts from the BB house are unlikely to be worthy of inclusion on their own, but the fact that like most sources, the stream provided is biased by editing does not in itself preclude its use as a source. Warofdreams talk 21:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we cover things because the press does, then our focus will be skewed. What's the best way of covering a man so hated by the press? -- Tompsci 09:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat incident 

message: George Galloway's office was dealing with constituents' problems on Friday just as we do every day of the week, including Christmas and New Year. Our office was, to my knowledge, unable to respond to only two calls from people saying they wanted to raise constituency problems - one who did not leave a phone number to return their call on and one where it was not possible, despite repeated attempts, to hear the number left. And this despite the fact that we were bombarded with dozens of fatuous calls from journalists like Dodd and that BT, unfortunately, failed to install the phones in our new office which was due to open on Friday.
Most MPs did not hold surgeries on Friday because of the parliamentary recess. But we did. A dozen constituents came to the surgery which we hold every Friday from 4pm to 7pm. The issues were predominantly the same as they always are - appalling housing conditions resulting from the year's of neglect and lack of investment by the New Labour government in Whitehall and the New Labour Council in Tower Hamlets, and immigration and asylum problems arising from this government's iniquitous, racist immigration and asylum legislation.
It was New Labour's propaganda before last May's election that George would not represent his constituency properly and it has remained so ever since. And yet not only has George held surgeries almost every week since his election and taken up and vigorously pursued hundreds of constituents' problems, he has spoken at more public meetings on campaigning issues around the constituency than his New Labour predecessor did in all the eight anonymous years of her incumbency. He has combined this with taking the Respect message around the country speaking to thousands and playing a very significant role building the international anti-war movement.
Rob Hoveman, Assistant to George Galloway MP -- Tompsci 16:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abandoning his constituents? 

message: From the article header - "He was returned to Parliament as its candidate in the 2005 general election". CANDIDATES are not returned to Parliament, MPs are returned to Parliament. Perhaps better to say "He was returned to Parliament after the 2005 Gneral Election as Respect's sole elected representative".
Except that he is not "Respect's sole elected representative".
:It's not entirely untrue; at the time he was the Respect's only elected representative to have been elected as a Respect candidate.  But it's not clear, so I've changed it to read "He was returned in the 2005 general election as Respect's sole Member of Parliament." Warofdreams talk 11:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I take it then that he is the only member of parliament, ever, under any circumstances, to represent Respect; which seems to be the implication of the current wording? Sandpiper 18:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is the only MP to have ever represented Respect.  Of course there could be other Respect MPs elected in future, which is in no way precluded by the current wording. Warofdreams talk 16:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point; I'd forgotten the councillor elected in mid-2004, so he was actually their second elected representative. Warofdreams talk 12:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header 

message: I know this is more of an Uncylopedia comment, but did anyone else think he appeared to be "doing a Monica"? (to coin a pseudo-euphimism - sp? - one of those words which look wrong whichever way they are spelt, even correctly.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.6.26 (talk • contribs) 24 Jan 2006
:I think that yo are just trying to promote Uncyclopedia.--JK the unwise 17:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you see him dance?--JK the unwise 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The cat incident

message: The article states that the telegraph did not have permission to appeal. How does that tally with todays announcement that they lost the appeal? MartinRe 12:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trial judge denied permission to appeal the verdict, but the Telegraph successfully sought permission to appeal from the Appeal Court. David | Talk 12:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Libel appeal

message: I concur with the person who put up the banner that the article is overlong. I am going to go and streamline it some now. One part I noticed that is worthy of abridging is in the section "Political views and characteristics" where GG is quoted without sourcing and without qualification (ie. "alleged ") that politics is too important for squabbling politicians, he denies this quote []. So that is problematic and I think is not particularly necessary even if it were sourced and undisputed. Ah well, here I go, will try to be judicious. DanielM 19:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think the section on the Oil for Food allegations is considerably overlong, rambling and unstructured. Perhaps we can get rid of the John Malkovich quote as well as I don't think it really adds anything. David | Talk 19:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AgreedFergie 13:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a particularly good reference and I'm sure the statement itself was slightly earlier in the campaign, but unfortunately I don't have LexisNexis to search. In the infamous Paxman interview (which I watched again yesteday) it's brought up near the end as a quote, and only after Paxman has referred to Oona King's race. David | Talk 11:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Big Brother' episode is frivolous -- it should be condensed to a small fraction of its current size. Alan Pascoe 21:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be frivolous and it is certainly not terribly significant in Galloway's contribution to the political sphere, but I suspect it will be quite significant in his public image. Certainly the mention in the article can be improved by editing it down but not to a small fraction. David | Talk 16:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone coming to this article to learn about George Galloway is going to be interested in a detailed description about an appearance on Big Brother. Alan Pascoe 21:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone made the point that sometimes current events get heavy coverage in Wikipedia articles, and then once the events fade from the public consciousness some the text in the article is drawn back. That sort of makes sense to me. People were interested in the Big Brother appearance of GG and editors would log on and discuss the details. Now or perhaps a couple months from now it might be appropriate to scale back that section. Eventually maybe it gets scaled back to a paragraph. DanielM 05:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloated article

message: I did not fail to notice that the large extent of DanielM's shortening was simply to expunge critical material pertaining to Galloway's assertions in the Senate hearings.  Moreover, the deletion makes complete nonsense of the reference, suggesting that Galloway's (long) comment relevant to the article was actually in response rather than a preface to the article's claims.
This whole bit of some Spectator person using the Wayback machine was not firm enough IMO
Somehow, I am hardly surprised, nor am I moved.
I also notice that some of Galloway's less flattering quotes have disappeared, including his support for authoritarianism in Pakistan and his autobiography's positive qualification of Saddam (referenced often) as being "likely to have been the leader in history who came closest to creating a truly Iraqi national identity, and he developed Iraq and the living, health, social and education standards of his own people"  and so on.  Not even a lengthy snippet, but excised nonetheless.  I would ask why were I not certain the answer is to be found in the reference to Galloway as a "prominent critic of Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1980s" and a laborious indulgence in ad hominem tu quoque pertaining to Rumsfeld.
I seek other's opinions, particularly those who are not still hangers-on for Galloway's self-evident and persistent benevolence, but as of now I am restoring the American Spectator section until a better solution or version comes of it.  --TJive 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are other examples of DanielM's "streamlining".    Removal of critical context, reference, and quotes in regards to Galloway's actions and claims.  This accounts for all but the autobiography quotes, which were deleted by JK the unwise.  --TJive 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O' righteous indignation.  --TJive 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There is plenty of negitive Galloway stuff in the article. There is also a full account of the reasons given for him being expelled for the Labour party in the Expulsion from the Labour Party section. Most of the stuff that was deleted has been unattributed, for example I deleted the stuff about critics claiming that Galloway's autobiog' shows him acting as an apologist for Saddam because there is no reference to who these critics are. In an article this size we should really only include critisms by notable people (regarding Galloway plenty of them exist!).--JK the unwise 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about how it may have been used at varying points but the quote should be utilized somewhere in the Iraq section--it is rather significant.  --TJive 18:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In an article trying to provide a NPOV, I don't think quotations are very useful without a sense on context. The whole saddam issue "I salute your courage..." becomes pretty irrelevant when you consider his aims of removing the trade embargoes which hurt innocent people and not Saddam. His condemnation of Saddam stretches back to when the UK was providing him with weapons. Quotes need context, else they are useless. -- Tompsci 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me get this straight.  Galloway's "reputation" of involvement in anti-Saddam activities (imposed only after the fact of acknowledgement he engaged in the reverse) means that as a necessity in changing the policy of the governments which imposed and supported sanctions he must prostrate himself before Saddam?  This not only is nonsensical, and a supplanting of "context" as apologia but ignores that the words come in book form, through the process (ostensibly) of writing, editing, and revision, unlike even his rhetorical flourish in front of the man which already goes far beyond official cordiality.  --TJive 13:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tompsci's attempt at defending GG and watering down his Wikipedia entry to hagiography is pretty weak. Just to be clear, Galloway's FULL quote is: "Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]."  I'm sorry, but what does victory "until Jerusalem" have to do with sanctions-busting, Tompsci? Do you think he meant it as a metaphor? Do a Google search for the words in that quote and you will see how "irrelevant" it is. --Paul Moloney 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical deletions

message: Saw this article today  about the Telegraph backing down. Also, didn't the Telegraph a few years ago wrongly report that GG got into a drunken fight with two women and a cop outside a pub, the real culprit being George Foulkes MP?
:That sounds like a corrupted version of the column written in The Times by Julie Burchill in March 2004, in which she clearly confused Galloway with Ron Brown, former Labour MP for Edinburgh Leith. See here and it's mentioned in Burchill's article. I don't think it's really serious enough for a mention in the George Galloway article. David | Talk 23:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's another distinct case where GG has been vindicated or won a legal over false politically-motivated allegations or fake documents it should be covered in this Wikipedia entry, where accusations and all things negative are dutifully reported. DanielM 14:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In the News