Misplaced Pages

Talk:George Galloway: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:59, 4 April 2012 editAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,017 edits A note about BLP: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 23:06, 4 April 2012 edit undoSnowlocust (talk | contribs)132 edits A note about BLPNext edit →
Line 191: Line 191:


::::::::Ok, back on topic, please explain why you cite a source for " a copy of the Koran around", but not for "Galloway denied any intention to convert"? ] (]) 22:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC) ::::::::Ok, back on topic, please explain why you cite a source for " a copy of the Koran around", but not for "Galloway denied any intention to convert"? ] (]) 22:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::: Because when one sources Statement X from Article Y, one does not need to automatically include every single other statement also made in Article Y. I.e. the guardian article states MANY things about George that are not mentioned in the WP article. In reality we should simply paraphrase nearly the whole guardian paragraph ''"He carries a copy of the Koran around, which has caused speculation he's a Muslim. He says: "That's between me and my God."' But asked by The Observer, Galloway denied any intention to convert."'' but I assume that those with anti-Islamic agendas won't be happy with such a change that leads to neutrality, and not the biased, Islamophobic article that they are trying to turn this into ] (]) 23:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:06, 4 April 2012

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Galloway article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
Former featured article candidateGeorge Galloway is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 21, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBig Brother Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThe Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and George Galloway has been identified as one of these articles. Anybody can help the WikiProject by trying to improve existing articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out.Big BrotherWikipedia:WikiProject Big BrotherTemplate:WikiProject Big BrotherBig Brother
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconScotland Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSocialism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconYorkshire Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconGeorge Galloway is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Pbneutral

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Galloway article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 2 months 

'As an orator' section

I removed most of this section because it did not seem to be a particularly good way to end this article. A section on 'personal life' is the usual Misplaced Pages practice.

Jeremy Paxman's description of Galloway as a "demagogue" (a point which only has a tangential connection to his oratorial skills) is better placed in the passage discussing the May 2005 interview. Obviously the quotes from The Times by Hugo Rifkind and from an article by another journalist, though undoubtedly accurately rendered, are no longer freely available, but what is the point of repeating the "demagogue" claim? The quote from The Boston Globe is from a reprint of an Associated Press article which appears to be no longer available on a site which would be considered a reliable source. Philip Cross (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is the "usual Misplaced Pages practice" to conclude with a personal life/background/family section. That usu. goes towards the front, in my experience. As to the "as an orator" section, in my opinion it should be left in if accurate. Dubious and, probably, non-dubious but merely unsourced parts of it could be deleted at the discretion of any editor. My personal sense though is that an editor should at least express a doubt, if only a light "not sure about this" sort of doubt, before making substantial deletions of the work of others (of course there might be some other reason to delete). I looked for some other reliable source for the quote (it's by AP reporter Jill Lawless, and is accurate) that is I now think mistakenly particularly attributed to the Boston Globe (although I am confident it was published there, as well as at other reliable sources). The problem is, I now realize, that it arguably casts the quote as some sort of editorial opinion of the Boston Globe. I'll take a look at it. Yah, the "demagogue" Paxman comment should not be in the article redundantly. I think when that severity criticism is levied by some third party in any Misplaced Pages article about a person, it's a matter of fairness that the person's response also be covered. In this case Oona King furnishes a response for Galloway, amounting to a defense, and that would seem sufficient to me. DanielM (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
When a subject has many relatives who are also prominent, that does tend to be near the beginning of an article. But that is comparatively rare, and a nuisance because the substance of the article, the reason for the subjects notability, is usually delayed from being developed.
The "demagogue" reference should be better intergrated, but editor's should watch the interview to see how that might be done. Paxman's use of the term is not unique, I removed some other examples because they seemed repetitive, but there are other sources in a similar vein. Just before the 2005 general election Nick Cohen compared Galloway to Oswald Mosley, for example. I don't prepose to add that source, it has already been removed at least once, but Galloway does keep receiving a strong response from his oopponents, often in very reliable sources. Oona King's criticism of Paxman's approach did not relate to the "demagogue" comment. Philip Cross (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Is MP Galloway the parlimentarian who represented the most different constiuencies?

Galloway has represented 3 different constituencies, is that a record of some sort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.211.141 (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No. I've looked at two other politicians. Roy Jenkins represented constituencies in three different cities. Winston Churchill is listed for five constituencies. I think that Woodford might have been split off his previous constituency of Enfield. Although Oldham is in Greater Manchester, I doubt that his move there was a similar issue.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that those of us who live in Walthamstow would be able to explain to you why Woodford could not have been split off from Enfield, Peter. You obviously live in a different part of London! RolandR (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
So that means that WC had five distinct seats over his career. For the OP, I picked the above two to look at because they, like Galloway changed parties which is a frequent reason for looking for a new seat. Other reasons may involve up-and-coming politicos who start in marginals and are then moved to safe seats. We're likely to have a fair amount of churn next time around too when a lot of boundary changes are expected together with a reduction in the number of seats. Fairly well-known people will be dislodged and may end up looking for seats where their colleagues are retiring.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Scottish election 2011?

I came here hoping for a bit of info on Galloway's failed bid to become a member of the Scottish parliament in 2011 but there isn't a single reference to it. I know this is the sort of thing I should add yourself, but I don't know much about it - which is why I came here :)

Seems like a big omission to me... 91.125.86.120 (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOLD. You are correct, it is a huge, glaring omission. An incredible amount of publicity and hype surrounded that catastrophic campaign, so there must be thousands of reliable ext refs out there.
I am afraid that Misplaced Pages is the home of hagiography, so any failure or anything negative about a person, especially a living one, tends to get ignored or downplayed. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Convert to Islam?

This isn't mentioned anywhere. The article simply says he "returned to the Church"?

George Galloway obviously, at some point, converted to Islam. "All praise to Allah!” said the new MP, through a loud hailer" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9176195/A-runaway-victory-for-George-Galloway-and-all-praise-to-Allah.html), Muslim weddings, evidence of this video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCje6Ef_lA , etc. Snowlocust (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You need a more reliable source than what is obvious to you in order to make this edit; and you will be hard-pushed to find one, since it isn't true (not, of course, that it would matter if it was). "Galloway has never converted to Islam, though lots of his supporters in Bradford West appeared to be under the impression he had. Yet in the early hours of Friday morning as he celebrated in the street with hundreds of young supporters, Galloway made a slip-up which would suggest to any practising Muslim that he was not one of them: he invited them to join him at noon for a tour of Bradford on an open-top bus. It was only when someone called out "what about Jumu'ah?" that Galloway realised his victory parade clashed with Friday prayers. The tour was duly postponed until 2.30pm."Helen Pidd, George Galloway hails 'Bradford spring' as Labour licks its wounds, The Guardian 31 March 2012 RolandR (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you making the mistake of assuming that because he doesn't follow the faith perfectly/made a slip up regarding prayer times, he is not a Muslim convert? If so, you are very incorrect. Being a convert to Islam is simply believing that "There is no God but Allah", a statement GG has said many many times, making him (by the Islamic definition) a Muslim convert.Snowlocust (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Point of information: Helen Pidd of The Guardian says in black and white (my emphasis): "Galloway has never converted to Islam, though lots of his supporters in Bradford West appeared to be under the impression he had." WP:VERIFY is your friend (as well as being official Misplaced Pages policy.) --Mais oui! (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So even though there is massive amounts of evidence of his conversion and even though under the Islamic definition he is a Muslim, all of this evidence is overwritten by a biased guardian journalist, and it's not even worth briefly mentioning in his wikipedia article that there is massive amounts of evidence pointing towards conversion? Snowlocust (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Your opinion (and mine) counts for nothing on Misplaced Pages. If he really has converted to Islam, then you should be able to find a reliaable source saying so. The youtube video you cited above certainly isn't such a source; it shows only that, like most politicians, he says things his audiences like to hear. --NSH001 (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It isn't an opinion. The FACT is that the Islamic definition of a Muslim is one who believes "There is no God but Allah" (swt). The FACT is that Geprge Galloway believes "There is no God but Allah" (swt). Therefore, by extremely simple logic, George Galloway, by the Islamic definition, is a Muslim.Snowlocust (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"Allah" is Arabic for "God" (technically "the God"). 'There is no God but Allah', just means, "there is no god but The God" - ie it is an assertion of monotheism. Being a monotheist is not sufficient to be a Muslim. There are, of course, many non Muslim monotheists. You have to believe that there is no god but God, and Mohammed is his prophet. In the You Tube video Galloway never says the second half of the phrase and gets aggressive when he he is asked what his religion is, refusing to answer. You don't need to be a genius to realise why a politician would equivocate about that. Paul B (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an obvious case of Islamophobic bias - you cannot deny the massive amount of evidence pointing to his conversion - and to not even mention it is simply ridiculous.Snowlocust (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an obvious case of a complete lack of evidence - and per WP:BLP policy, we'd need a statement by Galloway himself, in a published reliable source, that he was a follower of Islam, before we would put it in an article. We don't rely on guesswork, and our own interpretation of YouTube videos, for assertions about belief - or about anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the addition of Galloway holds many Islamic beliefs and stances, such as refusing to lie during Ramadan, and counts himself as part of the muslim world per WP:BLP. Snowlocust, on a claim like this the onus is definitely on you to seek consensus before adding it. --John (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCje6Ef_lA, statements straight from the horse's mouth, seeking admin action regarding this as I suspect users are pushing their own anti-Islamic agendas onto WPSnowlocust (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
See WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP and WP:RS. --John (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The YouTube video us completely useless as a source for anything. We have no source for it - it uses cherry-picked quotes - and what is more it is clearly dubbed (badly) in places. Utter rubbish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Your anti-Islamic agenda is extremely transparent and obvious. The video shows legitimate interviews from George Galloway himself. Valid source, awaiting admin decision Snowlocust (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Your cluelessness is extremely transparent and obvious. If you want to see Islamophobia, I suggest you check the other YouTube postings by the contributor, 'Couchtripperthetit' - and some of his comments... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Videos, in general, are not reliable sources because they can be easily edited to present a misleading impression. The one you are attempting to rely on is exceptionally egregious, as it includes inserted commentary making claims which are not supported by the evidence, for example the claim or implication that because GG doesn't drink he is a muslim. As I mentioned before, if you want to discuss the reliability of this video further, ask at WP:RSN. --NSH001 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, 'Allah' means 'God', and is widely used by CHRISTIANS, not just Muslims. It is highly offensive to many Christians to say that the use of 'Allah' makes them Muslim! Suara Gondang (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wish to dispute George being Roman Catholic

I am asking for help and advice regarding this topic. I will copy most of this over from my talk page (I asked a question about this last night)

New section as the previous one is addressing a different point to this one and got out of hand

George Galloway practices many Islamic beliefs and has consciously included himself as part of the "Muslim world". Facts:

  • Galloway refuses to lie during Ramadhan and considers doing so a "very wrong thing to do"
  • Always accompanies saying the name of the Prophet Muhammed with the traditional "peace be upon him"
  • Believes the prophet Muhammed "ascended to heaven" from the Al-Aqsa mosque.
  • Galloway does not drink nor gamble (Not strictly Islamic per se, but a requirement of being Muslim)
  • When asked what his religion was, Galloway replied in his usual stance of dodging the question, but this time added "there is only one God, and no God but God", which is the fundamental statement of Islam
  • Galloway classes Muslims as his "brothers and sisters"
  • Galloway makes heavily implied statements such as "A Muslim is somebody who is not afraid of earthly power but who fears only the Judgment Day. I’m ready for that, I’m working for that and it’s the only thing I fear"
  • Galloway commonly makes references to Islamic concepts, for example "We stand for justice and haqq "
  • Another example of a statement on his radio show is "The holy month of Ramadan is upon us, we will all be fasting for a longer day than normal"
  • Galloway has married 3 Muslim women in Muslim ceremonies. If he was actually Roman Catholic this would be prohibited as Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men.

Source: Newspaper articles, his radio show, his TV show

Here are examples of the TV shows/Radio shows that have been broadcast. Unfortunately these videos are made by obvious Islamophobes and are are obviously not reliable sources, I am purely stating them as examples of the things he has said on his shows. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCje6Ef_lA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGkq6oO4u50

So, George Galloway. Muslims count him as Muslim. Anyone with a shred of religious knowledge, from the evidence, considers him a Muslim.

No, I am not saying Misplaced Pages should state "He is a Muslim", as per NOR.

To say he is a "Roman Catholic", end of story, is simply wrong. Roman Catholics do not "refuse to lie on Ramadan", Roman Catholics do not believe "Muhammed ascended to heaven from the Al-Aqsa mosque", Roman Catholics do not "Fast on Ramadan", and so on.

I believe this breaks the WP rules of WP:TRUTHS.

  • Galloway classes Muslims as his "brothers and sisters"
  • Galloway makes heavily implied statements such as "A Muslim is somebody who is not afraid of earthly power but who fears only the Judgment Day. I’m ready for that, I’m working for that and it’s the only thing I fear"
  • Galloway commonly makes references to Islamic concepts, for example "We stand for justice and haqq "

All 3 of these are taken from the recent article here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9176195/A-runaway-victory-for-George-Galloway-and-all-praise-to-Allah.html . So there should be no problem adding these.

However I need help concerning the TV shows. For example, George Galloway stated on his Press TV show "The Real Deal" that he "doesn't lie on Ramadan" and that he believes "lying on Ramadan is a very wrong thing to do". This can be seen here, at the 20 second mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCje6Ef_lA However this video is probably in breach of copyright, and so is unusable. Could anyone help me in finding the correct sources for these videos?

I have been instructed to drop accusations of Islamophobia, under WP:AGF. That said, I still feel that this situation may be due to anti-Islamic agendas, and as such will be watching very carefully and being in close contact with the admins. I find this situation absolutely shocking on a website that prides itself on a "neutral" POV, but let's leave it at that.

Finally, I noticed in the history that user 86.161.253.195 has essentially been making the same changes as I have, but they were all reverted, so if you're reading this it would be good if you could sign up and we could discuss the matter further :)

Snowlocust (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please provide proper citations for material: we need to look at statements in context, and we also need to be able to verify their authenticity. In any case, we base any assertions regarding the religious faith of individuals on their own direct, public, verifiable statements, and not on our own personal opinion of the meaning of particular phrases. Whether it is correct to state that Galloway is a Catholic, I'm not entirely sure - but it would be totally against multiple Misplaced Pages policies to use the material you provide to suggest that he is a Moslem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. 3 of the statements are easily verified, here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9176195/A-runaway-victory-for-George-Galloway-and-all-praise-to-Allah.html As for the other statements, videos are all over the internet such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCje6Ef_lA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGkq6oO4u50 but these are not usable as WP sources, hence why I'm asking for help if anyone can find any videos (perhaps in Press TV archives?) that are usable :) Snowlocust (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I should add that I follow George closely and, concerning the statements he makes in the above YouTube videos, I have personally seen and heard as they are being broadcast on his TV show/radio show, so I know they are authentic, the problem is finding them online. I cannot upload the videos to the internet personally as that would be a copyright violation. Sadly my own memory is not a good enough source for a BLP for obvious reasons.. any help appreciated in finding these videos Snowlocust (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/galloway-converts-to-islam.85464/ Looks authentic but I can't find a more reliable source, can anyone else? Snowlocust (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
It's very simple. If Galloway verifiably says he has become a Muslim, then we can include that. The site you refer to is not reliable. It's just a forum. It's reasonable to ask why he would not clearly say that he has if it's true. All of the statements you quote are in contrast intentionally equivocal. Why would someone who has converted to a religion be so evasive about it? It's more reasonable to assume that he is saying that he lives his life in a way that is in conformity with Islamic values in order to butter up Muslim voters. Some of the comments are pure grandstanding. The Ramadan comment is just gratuitous. Why would anyone accuse him of lying anyway? Is he implying that it's perfectly alright for him and for Muslims to lie as much as they like at all other times of the year? That's far more anti-Islamic than anything that's been written here. Paul B (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I've cleared the religion attribute from the infobox for the time being. His blog doesn't contain a statement about his religion as far as I could see and the youtube video shouldn't be there. The Guardian article is helpful as a secondary source in that it says "his Roman Catholicism is not exclusive" and "Galloway denied any intention to convert", but again, it's not quite the same as self-identification, and it's from 2004. If his religion is unclear it's fine to leave the infobox attribute blank. It's for simple undisputed facts. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I support this and in fact edit-conflicted with you as you were removing it. This field should only be used for unequivocal and uncontroversial self-identification. --John (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
But he hasn't came out and said anything like that, that's the problem. It's completely wrong to say he's just "buttering up voters" - many of the times he's said things such as his belief "Mohammed ascended to heaven from the roof of the Al-Aqsa mosque", it's been in speeches in the middle of Iran which aren't even broadcast in the UK, and thus would have absolutely no effect on his voters back home. The fact is that, by EVERY definition, he IS a Muslim convert. Obviously we cannot say that in the article until we have a definite source, but as per WP:TRUTHS it would be very wrong to bluntly state his religion when there is so much evidence to the contrary, so I completely agree with the decision to remove "Christian" from the infobox. Perhaps a new section? Snowlocust (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes,he hasn't said he's a Muslim. He's said things that are likely to please Muslim voters. He didn't say he believed that Mohammed actually ascended to heraven. Hwe just said this is the site where it happened. If I say the Reichenbach Falls is the site where Holmes struggled with Moriaty, it does not imply that I am asserting the belief that this literally happened. Everything Galloway says is deliberately ambiguous. That should tell you something. You simply wont accept that he has never said the actual formula for Muslim belief, so you are flat wrong when you say The fact is that, by EVERY definition, he IS a Muslim convert. You have to actually convert to be a convert, not say things that are not inconsistent with it. Paul B (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I think we're arguing even though we're on the same wavelength. However, think of it this way. Imagine I was a famous person with an article about me. I might not say directly "I am a fan of football", but if I spend half my wages on fan memorabilia, spend half my life travelling to away matches, go to every home game, watch every game that is televised, idolise football players, and have a vast knowledge of football, then by everyone's definition I am a fan of football. That does not mean we on WP can say "He is a fan of football", but if there is a statement on my Misplaced Pages page which says "He is NOT a fan of football", even if it is verifiable somewhere, then we have problems, due to WP:TRUTHS. This has been fixed now (the statement about him being Roman Catholic has been removed) so this isn't an argument that has much point...Snowlocust (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A new section would be a poor idea in my opinion because it would be difficult to source adequately to meet WP:BLP and because on an article about a politician such emphasis on religion would be undue weight. --John (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh. In that case I bow to your experience on the matter. I just made a current religion section but no problem if it's gotten rid of. Although would be good if the statements and sources were preserved.. Snowlocust (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
One other point. I am less than convinced that the voice on the video which states that " "Mohammed ascended to heaven from the roof of the Al-Aqsa mosque" is Galloway's. Given the thoroughly-disreputable source for the video (a YouTube Islamophobe), we have no means whatsoever to ascertain its authenticity - and no reason to try. If Galloway says things to butter up whoever he is talking to, he'd hardly be unique in any case. Essentially, it can be shown that (a) Galloway has said things which are pleasing to potential supporters, and (b) he insists that his religious faith is not something he wishes to discuss in public. On this basis, all we can do is report the verifiable fact: that we don't know what, if any, faith he is a follower of. And until we have a clear, direct assertion from him on this matter, in a reliable source, that is how it must remain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the YouTube source isn't particularly good for that reason. Makes me think of the parody Hitler speeches from Downfall. It would be awfully easy to fake such a video. --John (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
There can really be no question of citing the YouTube video itself as a source in the article - it consists of clips from multiple sources, and is therefore almost certainly a copyright violation, even ignoring the obvious problems with authenticity, and the fact that it was complied by someone determined to portray Galloway in a bad light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree and have removed the source and the factoid that was referenced from it. --John (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A note about BLP

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

For example,

  • This did not support: "Galloway associates himself with many Islamic beliefs and practices, at a March rally stating "We stand for justice and haqq", "A Muslim is somebody who is not afraid of earthly power but who fears only the Judgment Day. I’m ready for that, I’m working for that and it’s the only thing I fear", and also always addressing Muslims as his "brothers and sisters"." (my bolding)
  • This is not an adequate source for "On 3 January 2009, after Galloway was manhandled by riot police in London at the demonstration in protest over the Israeli offensive in the Gaza strip, the director of programming replaced Galloway with Ian Collins, saying that this would allow for more balanced reporting of the situation."

WP:BLP dictates that we use only the strongest sources for contentious claims (so not tabloids) and that we do not repurpose sources beyond what they actually support. Let's all be vigilant to avoid more stuff like this creeping back into the article, please. --John (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, your first bullet point was my fault, I should be more careful around such words as "many" and "always" Snowlocust (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I still don't see it as encyclopedic to speculate about whether or not he is a Muslim. I'd be happy to discuss it with others here towards a compromise. --John (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, we shouldn't be using a source that explicitly states that when "asked by The Observer, Galloway denied any intention to convert", as a source for a claim that there is "speculation he is a Muslim". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=George_Galloway&diff=485604049&oldid=485603686 Please stop removing this. You are removing direct statements taken from the guardian article. Will be raising this with the admins if you persist, as you already know my feelings on your relationship with Islam. Snowlocust (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The correct way to settle disputes is by discussing the merits of the edits, not by making personal attacks on contributors - and I have yet to see any indication that "relationships with Islam" are affecting anyone's behaviour - except possibly yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"The correct way to settle disputes is by discussing the merits of the edits" Agreed. Shame John doesn't see it this way, his method seems to simply be bashing the "undo" button until people see it from his point of view. Snowlocust (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
In which case, discuss the merits of the edits here, as both John and I have asked you to. Can you explain why you are using a source that states that "Galloway denied any intention to convert" to suggest that there is speculation that he has - and without also mentioning the denial? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
What you are saying is obsolete, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=George_Galloway&diff=485603686&oldid=485601501 made no mention of speculation and was still reverted by John (and I have now made formal complaint to admins) Snowlocust (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
You have - and I suggest that you take note of what you will be told there - your behaviour is inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Please keep this article's talk page on topic and discussing the article, thanks :) Snowlocust (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, back on topic, please explain why you cite a source for " a copy of the Koran around", but not for "Galloway denied any intention to convert"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Because when one sources Statement X from Article Y, one does not need to automatically include every single other statement also made in Article Y. I.e. the guardian article states MANY things about George that are not mentioned in the WP article. In reality we should simply paraphrase nearly the whole guardian paragraph "He carries a copy of the Koran around, which has caused speculation he's a Muslim. He says: "That's between me and my God."' But asked by The Observer, Galloway denied any intention to convert." but I assume that those with anti-Islamic agendas won't be happy with such a change that leads to neutrality, and not the biased, Islamophobic article that they are trying to turn this into Snowlocust (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Categories: