Talk:George Galloway/Archive 1

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

text: 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)
thread_title: netrality1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: May I ask for a source for his alleged "nickname"? Get-back-world-respect 00:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok. Sources for George Galloway being nicknamed 'hon. Member for Baghdad': Daily Telegraph 22nd April 2003 , ABC News (Australia) , BBC News online , Irish Examiner . 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: On neutrality

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Quotes section

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

text: 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)
thread_title: netrality1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: May I ask for a source for his alleged "nickname"? Get-back-world-respect 00:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok. Sources for George Galloway being nicknamed 'hon. Member for Baghdad': Daily Telegraph 22nd April 2003 , ABC News (Australia) , BBC News online , Irish Examiner . 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: On neutrality

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Quotes section

message: Your claim that the Sunday Times is opposed to Galloways politics is just that, your claim and has no place in an encyclopedia article. Please keep your pro-Galloway POV out of this article. --Mrfixter 4 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)
:Stating the bleeding obvious isn't original research. And it is relevant to the S Times' decision to publish the material days before a general election Galloway was contesting. Given the narrow margin, the article could easily have kept Galloway out of Parliament (effectively losing him his job, as well as political voice). Rd232 4 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)
:Wiki policy says 'The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".'
:The notion that a newspaper has a bias, and indeed what that bias is, is frequently published and discussed. Whether newspapers themselves constitute 'reputable publications'in which to publish, i don't know. It is hardly a new interpretation. The entire economics of running a newspaper is based upon writing articles with a particular slant which will appeal to their readers. No newspaper can afford to change its established slant.Sandpiper
::Cite your sources. Please read original research before you comment. Why would the Sunday Times do a favour for the Labour Party? Lets keep original research out of this article. --Mrfixter 4 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)
:::See above where already answered, but discrediting Galloway also discredited the labour party to which he not so long ago belonged, just before the election. Reporting the marital failings of a member of a political party is not normally seen as helping them.Sandpiper 5 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
:::It is original research because it is the analysis of Wiki editors in an attempt to attribute motive for dishonesty.  If the paper itself (and not, say, Oliver Kamm) stated its support for a candidate opposed to Galloway this would be a relevant contextual detail which is fact.  --TJive July 5, 2005 00:14 (UTC)
::::No, it is an attempt to report facts. reporting facts is not research. As again already posted elsewhere, failing to report facts is bias.Sandpiper 5 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
:::::The concept that a paper can be biased is not novel in that it can be readily found in many notable publications, for the purpose of gathering views on the potentiality of bias.  What is novel is the analysis of users that this particular paper is many things: "strongly ideologically opposed to Galloway's politics", an "appalling Murdoch comic", and now "favouring 'establishment' values and the conservative party".  These are not facts; they are the perceptions of Wikipedia editors, not even having the benefit of speaking through a briefly Googled link or two.  As I said, if there can be found a factual example where the Times board openly endorses an opponent of Galloway's against him, this would be a relevant contextual detail to that specific report.  As it stands, the attempted insertion is merely the irrelevant POV of a few users for the purpose of constructing a morsel of defense for Galloway and nothing more.  --TJive July 5, 2005 02:40 (UTC)
TJive, you're being silly (if you're British; I'll let you off if you're not). It is common knowledge that the Times, like most British newspapers, is conservative with a small c (and when the Conservative Party isn't too embarassing, with a big C; it urged readers to vote Conservative in the 2005 election). Ergo it is opposed to Galloway's leftwing politics (which is on the left side of Old Labour, never mind New Labour), all controversy over Iraq and Palestine aside. See for example this interview, which you'll surely agree is pretty hostile. Rd232 5 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)
I think their complaint is that "common knowledge" is insufficient. "Common knowledge" is something everyone knows, i.e. that the sky is blue and water is wet. Not everyone knows what the Times' editorial policy is. However, citing a source that either asserts the Times policy or from which the reader can infer it, should be a valid approach. For example, you could simply state that "This linked interview illustrates the Times' view of Galloway's politics" without restating what that view is, just led the readers draw their own conclusions. However, in the case of your citation, it requires registration to the Times, so that link could be regarded as spam. Wahkeenah 5 July 2005 11:21 (UTC)
:I found the interview through Google; it doesn't require registration. Or at least, I'm not registered and I can access it. Rd232 5 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)
When I click on the interview link, I get the following:
:The area you wish to access is behind registration. 
:If you are an existing user of Times Online please enter your Username and Password on the spaces provided below on the right. 
:If you are new to Times Online please click on the Register Here button below on the left and follow the steps indicated.
Wahkeenah 5 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)
I also tried it, and got redirected to a page saying I would require to allow cookies before registering. I allowed cookies, and retried the link. This time it gave me the page immediately. To the best of my recollection I have never registered with the times, but certainly not in any way requiring more than a simple logon id. Now I shall go and read it....It reports the extreme conservative bias of the telegraph, which lost in the libel trial against Galloway. But it does on the whole portray Galloway negatively, and certainly identifies him as extreme left wing labour. As it lists Galloway's libel victories, I imagine it was carefully written. It does not congratulate him on an outright victory, rather suggests that some issues remain unresolved.Sandpiper 5 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)
::Rd232, I am neither British or silly.  I read content from The Times/Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph (some say Torygraph), The Guardian/Observer, The Independent, Financial Times, and Economist rather frequently (in proportion to any other such content--though nothing from the likes of Daily Mail, Daily Mirror or The Sun and I am aware of the general thrust of the editorial positions of most of these papers.  It is the same here in the US often with the added irony of geographic approximations (and thus a New York Times and Washington Post opposed to a New York Post and Washington Times).  That isn't the point--which is that these casual inferences of perception are inappropriate to include particularly in the matter proposed here.  Here in the US, the New York Times is generally regarded as left of center but it vehemently claims objectivity.  It would thus be imprudent to mention in an article which makes reference to its reporting on, say, prisoner abuse that, "The New York Times, a paper strongly ideologically opposed to Bush's politics, published what it claimed was a secret report from the ICRC....  The obvious intent there is discredit the source by subjective inference on a tangential issue.  Where might such an interest be more duly and factually reported?  Well, a few days before the election there came a dual NYT-CBS report on a purported incident of weapons stockpile mismanagement in Iraq during the early days of the war.  The report itself and the timing of its release (which I believe was the subject of a dispute between the two organizations) were criticized very heavily by many commentators and more importantly the NYT endorsed Bush's opponent John Kerry for president, which reveals a very obvious stake in releasing a damaging story so close to poll time, regardless of its veracity or how the event may be interpreted (a comparable story would be one of the Sunday Times's own, the so-called Downing Street Memo).  Similarly, I asked for a reference to the paper endorsing a candidate opposed to Galloway in the election as this would be a relevant contextual detail, but instead we have only established how widespread perceptions can be.  Perceptions, however, are neither facts nor are they always so much as appropriate to include.
:::Careful now, I didn't suggest you were silly (that would be ad hominem), I said you were being silly (about STimes' political leanings being unknown). Anyway, I don't think the article actually needs the comment - and it's slightly editorialising - but given the issue (personal, not a matter of political importance) and the front-page treatment and it being 4 days before the election, it's a rather better example of political leanings being relevant than your latter NYT WMD one. Anyway, I've added a quote from Galloway. Rd232 6 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)
::By the way, your link undermines you in stating that the Times in fact endorsed Labour this year, as well as for the last election.  [Edit:  Actually I was wrong; you were referring to the section below where it mentions separately the endorsement of the Sunday Times, which was the actual subject.]  --TJive July 6, 2005 03:09 (UTC)
:::Thanks for that link, BTW, it is a rather handy reference.  --TJive July 6, 2005 03:18 (UTC)
There seems to be a dispute about this information again.  Could someone please provide a citation for the claim that the Sunday Times is generally opposed to Galloway's politics, and then explain why it is relevant or approriate? Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Sandpiper]] please read [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]] 

message: As there are lots of photos on the page already (some more free then others) I wasn't sure whether to add another. I think it would add something.
what ya think? yea or nay?--JK the unwise 16:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I will add the picture.--JK the unwise 10:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I really don't know if GG is noted for his rhetorical skill or not. Would it be possible to cite a source or sources for this? Thanks. --Mrfixter 16:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's quite famous as a public speaker. It's hard to cite sources for this sort of thing, since no-one except someone writing an encyclopedia article is likely to bother writing "George Galloway is noted for his rhetorical skill". However, if you look around at some of the stuff written about Galloway, you'll find that his proficiency as a public speaker is mentioned quite often. Cadr 16:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found this , the phrase "gift for rhetoric" is used. However, is that what Galloway is noted for? I am sure I could rustle up many articles commenting on his cigar-smoking, mercedes driving, villa in portugal owning, but is he really "noted" for these things? I would prefer the phrase "noted for his rhetoric" as a compromise. Comments? --Mrfixter 17:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about just quoting "gift for rhetoric", with source . Rd232 00:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: "Noted for his rhetoric" just doesn't sound quite right to me. It's not his rhetoric as such, it's his skill at using rhetoric that has been noted. Why do you prefer "noted for his rhetoric" to "noted for his rhetorical skill"? Which is how it is currently worded. Cadr 22:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Skill" sounds a little too subjective, and I agree that "noted for his rhetoric" sounds wrong. What about the phrase "noted for his outspoken rhetorical style"? --Mrfixter 23:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Skill" is subjective, but that's not a bad thing in this case. George Galloway is (generally) noted for being good' at rhetoric, not for being bad at it. I agree that a slightly softer formulation might be a good idea, but I can't think of anything just yet. Cadr 23:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, what do you think about "noted for his outspoken rhetorical style"? --Mrfixter 01:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I said, I don't really think that's what he's noted for. I think Rd232's suggestion above is good -- quote "gift for rhetoric" with source. Cadr 15:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mighty rhetorician, George Galloway 

message: Does anyone know of an online transcript of the Galloway-Hitchens debate? Adam 00:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link to a an mp3 of the debate to the article. Domocracy Now has it: . Enjoy - its a cracker. Seabhcán 10:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate

message: there is abuse in the first paragraph (calls galloway a goddamned traitor and so forth - but it doesnt show up in the 'edit' page so I couldnt remove it. Someone who knows the ropes here please do the needful. 219.65.185.26 00:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia pages covering controversial people often suffer vandalism. This particular piece was removed quite quickly when someone added it yesterday. Anyone can remove vandalism if they spot it - the simplest way is to go to the 'history' tab, click on the last good version, click on 'edit this page', write in an edit summary to the effect of "Reverting vandalism" and then click on 'Save page'. David | Talk 09:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Isn't the stuff in the first section of 'Early and personal life' about government funding for catholic schools unneccessary and written from a biased perspective? e.g. Isn't the bit about "...Catholics parad[ing] their loyalties to a foreign country.." slightly anti-catholic? Even if its not it hasn't really got anything to do with the article. -- Ezekiel 17:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry its vandalism by User:Sockpuppet@earthlink.net if you see it come back revert it.--JK the unwise 18:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *See also :Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com - Ali-oops✍ 18:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: [...] surprisingly as it is not a Catholic school, and it is almost de rigeur that Scottish Catholics, particularly those of Irish extraction, who comprise the overwhelming majority of British Roman Catholics, tend to insist on attending "denominational" schools, which many Scots, particularly Protestants, oppose as divisive and wish to remove from the public teat they have suckled from since 1918 when the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and the British Government agreed to the public funding of these "denominational" schools on the grounds that Catholics pay taxes for state schools which they cannot (or will not) attend. For now, however, the state funding of these schools continues, and Catholics point to the fact that some Protestants and Muslims send their children to Catholic schools as proof that they are a positive presence in Scotland, and that the students in Catholic schools outperform their peers in state schools, but those points remain insome ways unconvincing given the sectarian tensions in Glasgow and certain other "West of Scotland" areas, where some Catholics parade their loyalties to a foreign country, the Republic of Ireland.
which remained even after reverting User:Sockpuppet@earthlink.net. It would be nice if this debate were explained NPOVly on a page like Denomiational school in Scotland, which could be linked to from here. But POV stuff on the wrong page won't last --that's just a fact about WP! (It's also agrammatical; I might have kept more of the beginning if it had been clear how to fit into the sentence.) --Toby Bartels 19:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early and personal life 

message: Substituted at 20:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment