Talk:George Galloway

VIEWS ON SYRIA

Galloway's support for the Assad government and stated opposition to an Islamic government in Syria should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Except that his words "In fact the regime itself looks more and more like the terrorist ... This is a genuine popular uprising taking place in Syria"[1] are rather contrary to that view. GG's views on Syria are rather complex, and a short summary is not easy. Rwendland (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheez 'n' rice

Someone just added to the infobox that Galloway is a Muslim, citing the New Statesman article that Galloway is sueing Jemima Goldsmith over. Folks, he is taking the journalist who said he converted to Islam to court for libel. I can only assume that in this case the IP adding the information did not think it was complimentary, unlike the previous campaigner to get the same information in. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The speech to Saddam in the summary

I have reverted the deletion of this passage, and have rearranged the paragraph to contextualise Galloway's comments to Saddam Hussen.* It is impossible to avoid including it in the summary, as someone has said in the edit history, it probably the thing for which Galloway is best known, and is possibly the most familiar bit of archive (in the UK) involving Galloway. His claim that he was addressing the Iraqi people is included in the summmary.

* I know I should have split my actions into separate edits, but I am having browser difficulties on long articles. Philip Cross (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Julian Assange rape comments

This latest controversy seems worth noting to me:[2] I've added it to the article at George Galloway#Julian Assange comments. Robofish (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. A 'controversy' assertion needs to be based on more than that. And remember WP:NOTNEWS - we are in no hurry. Wait and see if his comments are commented on further elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"George Galloway condemned by party leader over rape comments", The Guardian[3]; "Galloway 'clarifies' rape comments amid growing storm", BBC[4]; "George Galloway defends Julian Assange rape comment", The Independent[5]; "George Galloway: Julian Assange rape allegations nothing but 'bad sexual etiquette'", Daily Telegraph[6]; "Rape or politics? Assange sex case splits Britain", Reuters[7]; "British lawmaker criticized over rape comments made in defense of Julian Assange", Washington Post[8]; "Galloway controversy over Assange 'rape' comments", AFP[9]; "MP's defence of Assange triggers consensual sex row", Brisbane Times[10]; "Akin to Idiocy, or George Galloway’s Insertion", London Review of Books[11]; and there are many many more. Certainly enough to show that this has received very significant world-wide coverage, that opinions are divided (even within Galloway's own party), and that it is reliably described as a controversy. RolandR (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact his own party leader has condemned him makes the rape comments a controversy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/21/george-galloway-rape-comments-respect). Though I think it's important that the controversy section just doesn't become a list of everyone he has ever offended. The Oxford Union part, for example, seems trivial, as does the Trotskyist Workers' Liberty group being offended by him. And plain false allegations (the Christian Science Monitor part) are not really controversy now they are proven forgeries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.107.254 (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact 'controversies' sections in articles are generally frowned on anyway - if something is of such significance to merit inclusion at all, it should be included in the appropriate section of the main body of text. A rag-bag collection of 'reasons not to like Galloway' isn't exactly encyclopaedic, is it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

RolandR is absolutely right. Galloway's remarks clearly qualify as a controversy, as established by the wide range of sources covering the event and the high profile responses that have been given.

Furthermore, I disagree with the idea that a 'controversy' section is nothing more than a 'reasons not to like' section. On the contrary, controversy merely means that a person has done something that has generated much critical response. But this tells us absolutely nothing about whether the said criticism is actually justified. It is absolutely right that we record those instances when our elected politicians do things that generate significant criticism, and people can make up their own minds as to whether or not they consider that criticism to be justified.Hermes223 (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't restore material to an article covered by WP:BLP while a discussion is ongoing. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're being overzealous, Sean.hoyland. AndyTheGrump did make a BLP objection - namely that the sources did not support the claim that Galloway's actions constituted a controversy. However, by not responding to Roland's argument (which in my view clearly showed it was) he has, I would argue, effectively conceded this point. Therefore, there is no longer any outstanding WP:BLP complaint against this material.

There are outstanding matters of whether the material violates WP:Notnews and whether it could be better included elsewhere in the article, but these have nothing to do with WP:BLP. I have already reinserted the material once, so I won't do it again, but I would argue that since there are no longer any WP:BLP objections, and since the material is well-sourced, we should revert to normal practices, which are that the burden of proof should be on those who wish to delete well-sourced material. Hermes223 (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Impatience. The discussion only started yesterday. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news source, there's no rush, and I see no evidence of a consensus to include it at this stage. I don't have any opinion on the content issue but I do know that an absence of evidence after a few hours != conceding a point in a discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing the point. Had Andy not responded at all yet to Roland's point, then your point would be valid. However, in his response Andy raises the matter of whether or not controversy sections should exist at all, but does not challenge Roland's argument regarding whether or not we can reliably call Galloway's actions controversial. When you explicitly fail to challenge another's argument when you could have done so, that is a concession. You see no evidence of consensus; I see no evidence of a dispute (with regard to BLP matters). Hermes223 (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So, you can wait for Andy and verify whether the assumptions in your analysis are correct because there is no hurry. The evidence on this page, including what Andy has written so far, does not support the notion that there is WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. The way to find out what his position is to ask him direct questions rather than make assumptions. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That does rather twist what I said. I never claimed that there was consensus for inclusion - I have acknowledged the matters of WP:Notnews for instance. Rather, I claimed that there was no longer any BLP dispute, and so the burden of proof lies on those who wish to delete the material, given that it is well-sourced. Of course, the claim that I am making 'assumptions' is clearly unfair; rather I am drawing a perfectly normal and valid logical inference that is drawn all the time in any rational decision making process. Hermes223 (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, this little debate we seem to have got going between isn't really productive anyway Sean.hoyland. So, bearing in mind WP:DRNC, could I invite you to actually express an opinion on the content of this material, and tell us whether or not you think it ought to be included and why. That, I think, would be a far more constructive way forward. Hermes223 (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It has been three days, and there has been no further discussion. Andy's points about BLP seem to have been answered, and in the intervening time Galloway has been sacked as a columnist - which surely renders the whole matter reportable, if ever that matter was really in doubt. I have therefore restored the material. Hermes223 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the sacking etc, I think WP:NOTNEWS no longer applies, and on that basis, the material should stay - though I've removed an assertion in Wikipedia's voice regarding 'English law': Wikipedia isn't supposed to be taking sides in the controversy, and the sourcing seems questionable. I do however stand by my comments regarding the 'controversies' section in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Religion - is Galloway now a Muslim convert?

The infobox currently gives Galloway's religion as "Roman Catholic" but given this controversy [12] and his marriage in a Muslim ceremony to a Muslim woman (illegal under Islamic law if he is not a Muslim), this appears to be in some considerable doubt. Perhaps at minimum the RC status should be removed. It isn't self-declared by him that he's now a Muslim but there appears to be evidence that points to that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)