Talk:George Galloway

Date of his Parliamentary service

Just one small fact - the date of his Parliamentary service should not be until the date of an election, but dissolution of parliament - as is the case on all pages with MP articles, as MPs are not in office during elections. Please change the date from 6 May 2010 to - 12 April, 2010, and change 7 May 2015 to - 30 March, 2015. Thanks 92.40.201.98 (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thickynugnug (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Iraq war

@Asarlaí: "bringing the party into disrepute"; why are we stating this POV as fact in WP voice? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"causing controversy when he visited and praised Saddam Hussein." also this does not summarize the body, and is advertised as facts despite his rebuttal. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who added that quote in Wikivoice. Hopefully this edit solves the issue. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I introduced the phrase about "bringing the party into disrepute" to replace the previous version which only mentioned one of the four charges which were brought against Galloway. I agree that we should avoid Wikivoice, which is why the phrase is in quotes, i.e. attributed to the Labour party. If you can thing of a better way of saying this then adjust the wording. Burrobert (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Burrobert: It shouldn't be mentioned in the lede, since there is an opposing view. He was simply sacked for his anti-war stance; and there are many interpretations and justifications on why and how. Let's stick to the facts. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither should be the part about Saddam Hussein, as this is not a proportionate summarization of the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

He wasn't expelled from Labour for opposing the war. The article makes this clear: "the committee unanimously found Galloway guilty of four of the five charges: inciting Arabs to fight British troops, inciting British troops to defy orders, inciting voters to reject Labour MPs, and threatening to stand against Labour. ... no other MP was expelled from the Labour Party for opposing the Iraq War". His meeting with Saddam caused a lot of controversy and is one of the things he's most remembered for; it's still regularly mentioned in articles about Galloway today, thirty years later. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Labour party committee, which is by definition partisan. Also all three sources cited are from 2003; i.e. primary sources. NYT for example describes it this way: "Mr. Galloway was forced out of the Labour Party in 2003 over his criticism of the Iraq war". [1]. Politico: "an anti-Zionist expelled by Labour in 2003 for outspokenly opposing the Iraq War." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned, there are two ways of looking at the expulsion. The Labour party went through a formal process and found him guilty of four out of five charges. Commentators outside the party have attributed the party's actions to Galloway's criticism of the Iraq war. Since both sides are covered in reliable sources we should include both views, or leave both out and just say he was expelled from the party. We can, of course, include details of both views in the article body. Each of the views should be attributed. There are a few things that I would change in the lead. For example we say "Galloway was accused of receiving illicit payments from Iraq's regime, partly from money diverted from the United Nations' Oil-for-Food Program" but don't mention The Guardian's finding that that "despite all the investigations in the Oil-for-Food Programme, no one has ever produced any evidence that Iraqi oil money ended up in Mr Galloway's pocket". Another editor has indicated that the lead is too long by removing my brief summary of the defamation cases. Perhaps we need to trim from the lead issues that require too much explanation. Burrobert (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Why do we have to include an editorial comment that the gruniad report was released "before the reports by the US Senate and the UN had been published"? Can't readers work that out for themselves via the dates and the chronological ordering? Burrobert (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The two ways are different. The first is primary source that should rarely be used on WP. The second is a secondary source by RS and not just "commentators". We always use secondary sources: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source." Makeandtoss (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We can't say in Wikivoice that he was expelled "for opposing the Iraq War". Officially, the Labour Party expelled him for controversial comments he made. So, the best thing would be to write that he opposed the war, and was expelled for controversial comments he made about it. Also, there are plenty of newer (secondary) sources that say he was expelled for what he said, not for opposing the war: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 18:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Asarlaí: We definitely say it in Wiki voice since it is supported by RS requiring no attribution per Wikipedia. The sources you cited on the other hand do not support the claim you made since Politico, France24, BBC, and Scotsman, all have them in quotes; i.e. they are reporting what Labour has said, and not what they think is true. The only source that you provided that doesn't have them in quotes says they are "accusations". Makeandtoss (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Asarlaí: Given there has been no independent sources presented for the claims against Galloway regarding his expulsion from Labor, and that RS have described it as simply due to his opposition to the war, this should be removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"bringing the party into disrepute" is the technical name for the offence for which he was expelled, not the subjective opinion of the party. If someone is tried for murder, some strong sources might say there is some other "real" reason they've been tried, but to be neutral we'd give the official charge in our article. Sources at the time made this clear, although more recent sources seem to be less likely to use the "disrepute" phrase (an exception being Middle East Eye, which you might expect to be more biased in favour of GG), but they tend to be much more specific than "opposed the war".

• Sources at the time: BBC 2003 The charges faced by Mr Galloway were understood to be that: he incited Arabs to fight British troops; he incited British troops to defy orders; he incited Plymouth voters to reject Labour MPs; he threatened to stand against Labour; he backed an anti-war candidate in Preston. He was found guilty of all but the third charge. The accusations were judged to break a rule which bans "bringing the Labour Party into disrepute by behaviour that is prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the party". ; Guardian 2003 George Galloway has been expelled from the Labour party after being found guilty of four of the five charges of bringing the party into disrepute. On the fifth charge - urging voters in Plymouth not to vote Labour - Mr Galloway was acquitted. (see also this clarification); al-Jazeera 2003 George Galloway, the MP for Glasgow Kelvin was expelled after being found guilty of charges that he had urged British troops to defy illegal orders, incited Arab troops to fight British forces, and supported non-Labour anti-war candidates. ;
• More recent sources: The Independent 2015 He was expelled from the Labour party in 2003 for bringing the party into disrepute, after he called the then Labour Government "Tony Blair's lie machine", and said British troops fighting in Iraq should refuse to obey their orders. ; The Conversation 2016 He had been expelled from Labour in 2003, for bringing the party into disrepute over his opposition to the Iraq War. ; ITV 2017 Mr Galloway - who was expelled from Labour in 2003 after being found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute ; BBC 2024 Labour accused him of bringing the party into disrepute after he said British troops in Iraq should refuse to obey orders, saying that those orders would be "illegal" because the UK/US invasion of Iraq was "illegal"."[Labour accused him of bringing the party into disrepute after he said British troops in Iraq should refuse to obey orders, saying that those orders would be "illegal" because the UK/US invasion of Iraq was "illegal". ; Times 2024 He was expelled from the party in 2003 after saying Blair and President George W Bush “attacked Iraq like wolves”, claiming the war was illegal and urging British troops not to obey “illegal orders”. Labour claimed he had incited Arabs to attack British troops, and the troops to disobey orders, which he strongly denied. ; Independent 2024 He was expelled from the Labour party in 2003 for bringing the party into disrepute, after he called the then Labour Government "Tony Blair’s lie machine", and said British troops fighting in Iraq should refuse to obey their orders. Yahoo News: Galloway also urged British troops to “refuse to obey to illegal orders”. This particular line was one of the formal reasons given for Galloway’s expulsion from Labour.[7] ; Middle East Eye 2024 Galloway was accused of bringing Labour into disrepute after stating that its leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and US President George Bush attacked Iraq "like wolves". The rebellious lawmaker also called on UK troops to "refuse to obey illegal orders".

BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Lead image

I'm at +1 on having the 2007 image. It is much better and the fact the the Rochdale image is newer doesn't mean that it is ideal because it isn't of very good quality. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's also likely that we won't have to wait too long for a high quality Parliamentary portrait to be released (assuming an election isn't called too too soon), so I don't see any problem holding on till then. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes hopefully a new parliamentary portrait will be taken soon. Strangely enough, no previous parliamentary portrait exists currently despite him being an MP for many years.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be because they only started taking these high quality parliamentary photos, and releasing them under CC, in 2017 [8]. This is also a problem that affects the other former MP who stood in Rochdale, Simon Danczuk, who, despite being an MP for 7 yrs, has to settle for a random OGL photo from a trip to Sri Lanka. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Re this edit: More quickly than expected, he does have an official parliamentary portrait. He is wearing the hat that seems to be his trademark, but it is much better than the Rochdale image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

+1  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see thanks for explaining. For some reason, I thought parliametary portraits started in 2015, not 2017.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

POV tag

Lede reads more of a deliberate collection of controversies than his actual political positions or a summary of the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't see any obvious lack of NPOV in the lead section. This can be in the eye of the beholder. Is there anything that you think definitely should not be in the lead section?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The controversies, although should definitely be included in the lede per MOS, they are overwhelming it to the point of obscuring an actual summary of his life, as a biography should do. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

A few quick points:

This sentence needs to be rewritten because it is tortuous and contains the word denied:

Galloway supported Ba'athist Iraq and travelled there to meet Saddam Hussein in 1994, in which controversy arose from comments considered to have praised Saddam, which he denied.

Do we need to know in the lead that a head injury led him "to wear a hat since"?

Do we need to quote voting percentages in the lead?

The long third paragraphs is a melange of unrelated facts.

Afaict, the phrase "and Ukraine's aspiration to join NATO" is not mentioned in the article body.

Burrobert (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, that these are some of the issues. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, you were the one who re-wrote that sentence about Saddam, and added the bit about Galloway wearing a hat. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 16:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Biographies should focus on the aspects of a person's life that the sources we use focus on. If sources frequently report on controversies, the article should reflect that. Cortador (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead is, or at least was, a fair summary of the article body. The 1st paragraph is a short introduction, the 2nd is about his early life and political career, the 3rd is about his political positions and views, and the last is about his career as a presenter.

Makeandtoss, you say the controversies are "overwhelming" the lead, but only three controversies are mentioned: his praise for Saddam Hussein, the allegations he received illicit payments from Saddam's regime, and his expulsion from Labour. They take up only three lines. That's despite Galloway sparking numerous controversies in his lengthy career. Each of these three controversies are in the lead because they were important events in his political career and are still regularly mentioned in news articles about him today, twenty-thirty years later. So the NPOV tag is totally unwarranted. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 16:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not essential for the lead to tell us that a head injury led him "to wear a hat since". But it's quite useful, in view of the fact it's very unusual for anyone to habitually wear a hat all the time these days. As with Gregory Porter, that detail could be in "Personal life" and should certainly not be only in the lead section. But it's certainly not "controversy".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)