Talk:George Galloway

1. Redirect Template:Dated maintenance category

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)

Religion

Template:Side box

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Galloway should not be described as a Catholic. He is openly anti-Christian. HerbGowan (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Where is he described as "Catholic", apart from by himself? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

He is often described as Catholic, probably because of Wikipedia. In reality he has always opposed Christianity. HerbGowan (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I meant where in this article is he described as "Catholic", apart from by himself? Your assertion "probably because of Wikipedia" might be difficult to substantiate. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Many people probably take his words in this article as gospel. Hitler described himself as a Christian in a speech in February 1933, yet was openly anti-Christian like Galloway. HerbGowan (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

That's not the sort of Gospel that I'd follow. There's no accounting for some people's stupidity. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Given that this is based on things that Galloway has said about himself, why would it be Wikipedia's fault?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Galloway has always openly opposed Christianity. He even tried to blame Christians for World War II and the Holocaust on BBC "Question Time". HerbGowan (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

If this hostility has been widely reported by secondary sources, it could be added to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

He now leads a small fringe party that is openly anti-Christian and anti-Semitic, the latter under the guise of "anti-Zionism". HerbGowan (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you suggesting any change to the article content on that score? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Galloway is clearly not a Catholic. The section should detail his anti-Christian activities. HerbGowan (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, which section? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The religion section. Galloway even called Christians "Nazis" on TV. HerbGowan (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to note: HerbGowan is now indef blocked re {{checkuserblock-account}} User:HarveyCarter. Not sure I can be bothered adding all the strikeout here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misleading lede

Template:Side box

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Galloway was not expelled from Labour due to his opposition to the Iraq War. HerbGowan (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

So why was he? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It was because he gave an interview in which he was accused of encouraging Arabs to kill British troops in Iraq. HerbGowan (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a good source for that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

An editor below has just provided one. HerbGowan (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The text later on in the article is clear that this is why he was expelled.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It is not the real reason. HerbGowan (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

See this BBC News source. I don't think that the wording in the article is inaccurate, and wonder if there is some sort of WP:COI here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

As your own source states it was because Galloway was accused of encouraging attacks on British troops. HerbGowan (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

So the BBC source said he faced five charges:

• 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

And that he was found guilty of all but the third charge. I think the lead section just summarises his very clear anti-war stance. Perhaps more detail is warranted in the main body? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Many Labour MPs strongly opposed the Iraq War. Only Galloway was expelled from the party- because it was not due to his anti-war activism. The lede must be reworded as it is factually wrong, and encourages readers to view Galloway as a martyr. HerbGowan (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It's the second charge that is the biggest problem for Galloway. The Abu Dhabi television interview was probably a major reason for his sacking.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure the word "martyr" springs to my mind for someone expelled from the Labour Party. I'd suggest that the wording in the lead section should not be changed unless it can be wholly supported by the detail in the main body. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Galloway is often described as a political martyr. He was expelled from Labour because he was clearly not loyal to the party, and had committed treason. HerbGowan (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure the UK Labour Party has the authority to charge anyone with "treason". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This is wandering off into original research territory. The current wording in the lead section is "He was expelled from the Labour Party in 2003 due to his prominent opposition to the Iraq War" and this is supported by the two sources above. Treason isn't mentioned, and if he had done this, he would have been charged.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and the main body says: "Template:Tq" which looks like a perfectly accurate account of the two sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The lede should mention the Abu Dhabi interview as it was the main reason. Implying it was just for opposing war is dangerous. HerbGowan (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that might be too much detail for the lead section. But, in any case, where does the main body say that the Abu Dhabi interview was "the main reason"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Eric Joyce stated it was the main reason to Galloway on "Newsnight" at the time. HerbGowan (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you can find a secondary source, that describes what Eric Joyce said on Newsnight, with a quote about the "main reason"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Telling the troops of your own country to disobey orders during wartime is clearly treason. In an earlier age Galloway would have been tried like William Joyce and John Amery. HerbGowan (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just your own personal WP:SYNTH. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

We are approaching WP:DROPTHESTICK here. Martin and I have explained that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources, and while I don't dispute that the Abu Dhabi television interview was probably at the top of the list of reasons why he was expelled from the party, this isn't explicitly stated in the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

If his expulsion was due to "anti-war activism" many other Labour MPs would have been expelled. HerbGowan (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

We all know that some Labour MPs opposed the war in Iraq, but George Galloway used such flamboyant language that his expulsion became pretty much inevitable. We aren't here to ask "Why was MP A expelled but MP B wasn't?"--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

No other MP was accused of inciting attacks on British forces. That went far beyond simply "prominent opposition to the Iraq War". HerbGowan (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

If this is indeed a fact, and it has been widely reported, it shouldn't be too difficult to find some source(s) which says this. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Galloway was not against the Iraq War. He openly sided with Iraq during the conflict, which is why he was expelled from Labour. HerbGowan (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The reasons why Galloway was expelled are clearly listed above. The article doesn't need to add opinion or editorial on top of those? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

He was not expelled from Labour for opposing the Iraq War. HerbGowan (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The article clearly says: "Template:Tq"Are you arguing that this fact is untrue/ was in some way invented? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

He openly sided with Saddam Hussein's regime, and was accused of inciting attacks on British forces in Iraq. HerbGowan (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. But we have established no consensus to change the summary in the lead section to your preferred wording. In fact, the current weight of argument is to retain it exactly as written. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Stating he was expelled for opposing the Iraq War is 100% wrong. HerbGowan (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

What a very odd conclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

It was for openly siding with Iraq against the UK, and for encouraging attacks on British troops. His increasingly vocal anti-Semitism was also a major problem for Labour by late 2003. HerbGowan (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

If you have any WP:RS source(s) that say his "anti-Semitism was also a major problem for Labour by late 2003", you would probably be welcome to add them. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

His argument with Ken Adelman was early that year. Galloway would have been expelled from Labour due to anti-Semitism like Chris Williamson. HerbGowan (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Outdent Williamson resigned from Labour. He was not expelled. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including ... talk pages". Burrobert (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Williamson was blocked from being a Labour candidate due to his anti-Semitism. HerbGowan (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Please stop making unfounded allegations about living people. Talk pages are to help us improve articles. What change do you want to make to this page and what sources do you want to use? Burrobert (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Williamson resigned from Labour after he had been blocked from standing as a candidate for the party due to his repeated anti-Semitic public statements. HerbGowan (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This is the page for discussing the George Galloway article. If you want to discuss the Chris Williamson article, please go to that talk page. Your edits here are now starting to get a bit disruptive. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The lede should mention Galloway's long-term anti-Semitism, just as Williamson's lede does. HerbGowan (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Not to get off topic but yes Williamson was blocked as a candidate because of his suspension, and the reason given for that suspension was for antisemitism. — Czello ^(music) 15:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Again off-topic but to clarify: the suspension was for comments Williamson made about anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. Anyway this is not his page so let's get back on track. What is missing from the discussion is a source to substantiate the numerous allegations that are being thrown around. Burrobert (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Since being blocked by Labour Williamson has joined an openly anti-Semitic party, and has been reported to the police numerous times for making statements calling for genocide in Israel. HerbGowan (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Herb old chap, we cannot do anything you suggest till you provide sources for your allegations. - Roxy the dog 14:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The lede should mention the real reason Galloway was expelled from Labour - he was found guilty of four out of five charges: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3205889.stm (HerbGowan (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC))

Once again, what's your source(s) for "the real reason". So far it seems to be just your personal opinion and no more. Also, could I kindly request that you don't add anything to the lead section, or even to the main body, before consensus is reached here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The article itself states Galloway was expelled because he was found guilty of four out of five charges. To claim he was expelled merely for opposing the Iraq War is revisionist nonsense, like how many people believed Eden had resigned due to the Munich Agreement. (HerbGowan (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC))

The lead section is meant to be a summary. I don't see that Anthony Eden is in any way relevant here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attack

Template:Side box

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The attack on Galloway does not belong in the lede as it was only a very minor incident which caused a few bruises. HerbGowan (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Would you describe yourself as a big fan of Galloway? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC) p.s. I believe he was hospitalised with a suspected broken jaw?

Yes. HerbGowan (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but since the attack is apparently the reason why he wears a hat all the time, it does have some degree of notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

He wears the hat because he is completely bald. HerbGowan (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It's sourced here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Not a direct source. HerbGowan (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This looks a lot like WP:AUTO. Wikipedia articles cannot be rewritten because the subject or someone close to the subject complained about them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "a direct source"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

There would need to be a direct quotation from Galloway. HerbGowan (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, there would need to be a quote from Galloway that had been covered by reliable secondary sources. I can't count the number of times that the subject of a Wikipedia article has turned up and said "this bit is wrong" but could not back it up with secondary sourcing. The hat is sort of notable, although not of key importance. Most people don't wear a hat all the time including indoors, so people are bound to notice this. Gregory Porter wears a hat all the time and there is a quote from him in an interview saying that this is because of surgery in the Personal life section. The Personal life section here contains a problem, because they mention the 2014 Notting Hill attack, but do not say that this is the reason why he wears a hat. The source that I mentioned above does say this. If this is part of WP:AUTOPROB, it might be worth removing the part about the hat if it is disputed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Re the hat: his Twitter post, on 4 August 2019, here, which we had as a source, said: "Template:Tq" You might call it a "direct quote"? Of course, we don't necessarily have to believe him. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The Daily Record also reports that here saying "Template:Tq" But that is just a tabloid. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Galloway wears a hat for the same reason Leif Garrett wears a hat. HerbGowan (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

We've provided ample reliable sourcing about why Galloway says that he wears a hat. Another famous fedora wearer was Michael Jackson, who wore one to conceal the scars that he had received after being burned while filming a Pepsi commercial. We're going round in circles on this, and any future comments should be based on reliable sourcing explaining why the wording in this particular article is wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Michael Jackson wore a hat because he was quite bald. Much of his hair was permanently destroyed by the fire. HerbGowan (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

But didn't affect his moonwalk, did it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

On the question of whether the 2014 attack is worth mentioning in the WP:LEAD, it could probably live without it. It is more important to note that a man went to jail for 16 months for this.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The Twitter post has a blue tick [3] which means that it is a verified account, not just anyone pretending to be Galloway. The use of Twitter posts as a source is definitely a grey area, as they have problems with WP:SPS. However, this solves the mystery of why some news sources say that he wears a hat to cover the injuries from the attack. This looks like a direct quote, doesn't it?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I guess the scars may have faded, while the follicles have depleted, which is why to say he has worn it for that reason "ever since" might be going too far. Here's a whole opinion piece about that hat Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

But if you want a "direct quote", you might want to use this. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anti-Semitism

Template:Side box

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The lede should mention Galloway has been accused of anti-Semitism on multiple occasions. HerbGowan (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Antisemitism is mentioned in the main body, but it doesn't say "Template:Tq". The lead section should be a summary of the entire article and should not mention anything that's not already included in the man body. What sources are you proposing in support of your suggestion? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

There should be a reference to his long history of making remarks that were widely condemned as anti-Semitic. HerbGowan (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Herb old chap, we cannot do anything you suggest till you provide sources for your allegations. - Roxy the dog 14:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Galloway has always been openly anti-Semitic: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/is-george-galloway-an-antisemite/

Would you care to sign your comment? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I think what we have in the body is more or less appropriate, most of the coverage I can find is opinion pieces (like the ToI piece you provided). I would not be opposed to including more controversial remarks if they have received good coverage and are not already mentioned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.