Kingsindian (talk | contribs) →Discussion: re |
Thenightaway (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
::: The problem with this is that it doesn't resolve the dispute. If people vote overwhelmingly for #A and that version gets inserted into the article, then I'll just edit in my proposed changes, because there won't have been any RfC on what my actual changes would look like. You do realize this? [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 17:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC) |
::: The problem with this is that it doesn't resolve the dispute. If people vote overwhelmingly for #A and that version gets inserted into the article, then I'll just edit in my proposed changes, because there won't have been any RfC on what my actual changes would look like. You do realize this? [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 17:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::: You are free to edit in your changes after this RfC finishes, but that does not mean that they will get consensus to stay in. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 18:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC) |
:::: You are free to edit in your changes after this RfC finishes, but that does not mean that they will get consensus to stay in. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 18:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::: Right, so your RfC is completely pointless and a waste of everyone's time. Unless, the intent is to willfully introduce flawed text and then edit-war to keep improvements out of the article under the false appearance of "consensus"? [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 18:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:06, 23 July 2018
George Galloway is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My edits
In lieu of a COI mention in my edit summaries, please see the active discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Philip Cross. I have made two minor changes today (here and here) to the article modifying previous edits; the error correction is to a change which has probably been included in the article for some time. These diffs are, one hopes, entirely uncontroversial. Old habits linger and so on. Philip Cross (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia completely and utterly ignored the COI. There is no acknowledged COI, Do what you want, no one really cares. Wikipedia's credibility is shot, and this is just one drop in the bucket. Your old habits, will stick with you, and Wikipedia for a lot longer than even you think. The article, which I gave up on is still utterly stupid. to wit: "Galloway pointed out that the presumed forgeries pertaining to the Christian Science Monitor report did refer to an earlier period.[citation needed]"
Hmm... How about [1] The video reference, he ... wait for it... said it. So the source is George, but you need a citation? You should start back at is his name really George. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:56:A494:E24D:2C11:BD29 (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oh LOOK! "Emblem-important.svg Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent." Everyone ignores the policies/warnings/procedures/all that useless posturing anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:56:A494:E24D:2C11:BD29 (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Something is happening. The page is changing as I edit this: The article is now locked, ( from any edits, from Cross, or myself.
- I want to confirm the sources of the statement: ( There are many transcripts available, many )
- http://www.wussu.com/current/galloway.htm
- http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/17/se.01.html
- http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~norman/CurrentAffairs/Galloway.pdf
- https://books.google.com/books?id=5KOcoblD1NEC&pg=PT231&lpg=PT231&dq=These+documents+were+unmasked+by+%22The+Christian+Science+Monitor%22+themselves+as+forgeries.&source=bl&ots=74B-vXkCKC&sig=XoNT5YzOaTFAla0eGUCPGLf1qaY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi314fnwK_cAhWdGTQIHbLDCNQQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=These%20documents%20were%20unmasked%20by%20%22The%20Christian%20Science%20Monitor%22%20themselves%20as%20forgeries.&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:56:A494:E24D:2C11:BD29 (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Had I been able to edit the biased article, I would have entered the following information from the Parlment record regarding the sources of the forged documents, for which the article suggest that citations are needed. To whit:
- "After I began legal proceedings against The Christian Science Monitor, and after The Mail on Sunday had bought another set of documents from the same Iraqi general, purporting to show my receipt of a different $10 million from a different son of Saddam Hussein, The Christian Science Monitor sent its documents to leading American universities for forensic examination. It was a precaution that it ought to have taken before publication, rather than afterward, because the documents were swiftly exposed as forgeries, as were the documents bought by The Mail on Sunday from the same source in the same week." -George Galloway, 8 May 2006
- Source: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060508/debtext/60508-0022.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:56:A494:E24D:2C11:BD29 (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Link to antisemitic article
One of the external articles listed above as mentioning this article is quite clearly antisemitic. The title is "“Philip Cross” Affair Reveals Jewish Lobby’s Editing of Wikipedia", and the article goes on to claim that "the Jews have been openly running a planned Wikipedia editing operation for over a decade" and that "the international Jewish lobby works full time to edit and censor Wikipedia to serve Jewish interests", and also to misquote Craig Murray's original article by adding the term "Jewish" to describe some of the people mentioned by Murray. The source, The New Observer, is a far-right, racist blog with multiple articles decrying the alleged "African invasion of Europe", questioning the truth of the Holocaust, arguing that there is a "direct correlation between race, IQ, and achievement" and much more questionable material. I recognise that the site has indeed mentioned this Wikipedia article; but it is not a reliable source, and would not be allowed for a source for any article here. Would it be acceptable to remove the link above? --RolandR (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, I will remove the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
"Support for Bashar al-Assad's government"
Several editors keep changing the header "Support for Bashar al-Assad's government" into "Support for the Syrian Arab Republic government". Most readers have no idea what the "Syrian Arab Republic government" is, especially given that the country has been in a civil war for the last seven years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- And the section is specifically about his personal support for Bashar al-Assad.Mezigue (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- So make it read "Support for Bashar al-Assad" instead of reverting to the incorrect "... Assad's government". Assad has no government, he is head of state and not a prime minister. If anything, the heading could also read "Support for Syrian government" as there has been only one central government in Syria throughout those years. — kashmīrī TALK 00:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think "government" should be dropped but that it should instead read "Bashar al-Assad regime", given that it's a dictatorship ruled by Assad. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have RS for this term? The Syria article says that the country has a dual executive system, there is not a word about dictatorship. — kashmīrī TALK 07:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Syria categorized as a dictatorship by every standard. Here's its Polity score,[1] Freedom House score,[2] and EIU democracy ranking.[3] A Google Search shows that RS, such as NYT, WAPO and FT, frequently use the term "Syrian dictator" to describe Assad. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I was talking about RELIABLE SOURCES. In addition, none of what you linked supports your assertion of dictatorship. — kashmīrī TALK 11:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- All the six sources I mentioned are RS. Do you seriously dispute that Syria is a dictatorship? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- There's no difference. Here's WaPo using the term "Syrian dictator".[4][5][6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I was talking about RELIABLE SOURCES. In addition, none of what you linked supports your assertion of dictatorship. — kashmīrī TALK 11:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Syria categorized as a dictatorship by every standard. Here's its Polity score,[1] Freedom House score,[2] and EIU democracy ranking.[3] A Google Search shows that RS, such as NYT, WAPO and FT, frequently use the term "Syrian dictator" to describe Assad. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have RS for this term? The Syria article says that the country has a dual executive system, there is not a word about dictatorship. — kashmīrī TALK 07:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think "government" should be dropped but that it should instead read "Bashar al-Assad regime", given that it's a dictatorship ruled by Assad. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- So make it read "Support for Bashar al-Assad" instead of reverting to the incorrect "... Assad's government". Assad has no government, he is head of state and not a prime minister. If anything, the heading could also read "Support for Syrian government" as there has been only one central government in Syria throughout those years. — kashmīrī TALK 00:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Also, a Google Search shows that many RS call Trump "stupid" (FP, CBS, CNN, The Nation, etc). Are you proposing to call him as such throughout Wikipedia? — kashmīrī TALK 11:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Reliable sources do not describe Trump as stupid. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Enjoy! [7] [8] [9] — kashmīrī TALK 11:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Those are op-eds (Per RS policy: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.") Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Same as to your "NYT sources" that describe the Syrian Arab Republic as a dictatorship. My suggestion to you: when trying to describe a given country's political system, it is helpful to consult legal scholars or UN publications. NYT, CNN, or NGO's that receive funding for "democratisation" or "promotion of human rights" aren't neutral either. — kashmīrī TALK 14:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- The "democracy" ratings I cited are from academic sources. They are best sources per WP:RS policy. NY Times is unquestionable a WP:RS. If you disagree, I suggest you take your complaints to the RS noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Same as to your "NYT sources" that describe the Syrian Arab Republic as a dictatorship. My suggestion to you: when trying to describe a given country's political system, it is helpful to consult legal scholars or UN publications. NYT, CNN, or NGO's that receive funding for "democratisation" or "promotion of human rights" aren't neutral either. — kashmīrī TALK 14:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Those are op-eds (Per RS policy: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.") Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Enjoy! [7] [8] [9] — kashmīrī TALK 11:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Reliable sources do not describe Trump as stupid. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Also, a Google Search shows that many RS call Trump "stupid" (FP, CBS, CNN, The Nation, etc). Are you proposing to call him as such throughout Wikipedia? — kashmīrī TALK 11:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Tweet addressed by George Galloway to Wikipedia
Please note this to wherever these things are noted (I have no personal interest in this article/its topic, I'm just someone who searches "Wikipedia" on twitter idly): https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1008287004734476288 --occono (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Somebody has already answered Galloway on Twitter with the correct place to send it, in confidence, and Galloway has acknowledged with thanks. We don't need to do anything further here, at least for the moment. --NSH001 (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Offer of money by Galloway
I would think that if a politician offers money to unmask a contributor whose opinions he dislikes (and the physical threat that implies) would be a notable fact. It has now appeared on the national news and so should appear on his article. Howard Alexander (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but that fact (which has been in the open for some time now) has nothing whatsoever to do with the tweet linked above, which is Galloway complaining about a "defamatory" tweet from Cross (one of numerous tweets from the latter taunting the former). I have therefore put your comment in a separate section. --NSH001 (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah - I'd missed that. You're quite right. Still, a paragraph summarizing the story as it has appeared in the press would be appropriate, I believe. Howard Alexander (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- You would cast George away from someone defending himself from attacks, to someone who, in clear utter desperation is defending himself from someone who is literally, our of habit, continuing to edit the article resulting in it being locked? Perhaps you would prefer to be the one holding the knife. "Et tu Bruti?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:56:A494:E24D:2C11:BD29 (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- And, by the way, you would not be the first person to attack Galloway, nor the last, you are just in the crowd of many, some of which have paid a princely sum for their dishonesty.
- "If my foreign correspondent visitor is right, a criminal conspiracy was hatched and executed between Baghdad and London against me." - George Galloway.
- https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060508/debtext/60508-0022.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:56:A494:E24D:2C11:BD29 (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- And, by the way, you would not be the first person to attack Galloway, nor the last, you are just in the crowd of many, some of which have paid a princely sum for their dishonesty.
Religion
Please would someone add words to the effect that George Galloway was raised as a Roman Catholic in the Religion section. See https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/still-standing-george-galloway-reveals-why-his-staunchly-leftist-outlook-is-still-invariably-right-7848557.html for a source. Thanks. 76.185.209.233 (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not done. We don't specify religion in biographies of living people unless religion is relevant to their notability. See MOS:BLPLEAD. — kashmīrī TALK 07:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- That being said, could this not at least be added into the "religion" section of this article? Otherwise, it seems to read as if he were raised Muslim his whole life, which is obviously not true. The fact that Galloway is a Muslim convert seems pretty relevant to include, imo. Bangalamania (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- The
religion =
parameter in officeholder infoboxes was removed in 2017[10], following removal from person infoboxes in 2016.[11]. — kashmīrī TALK 11:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)- I'm not talking about the infobox; I was referring to the section which already exists within the article. (Under "Personal life") --Bangalamania (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry, I misread you. But why do you think his faith is relevant to his notability? Is his notability linked to his religion? — kashmīrī TALK 12:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- His religiously-based attacks on Sadiq Khan are notable, especially since (as the article states) he claims to be a non-Muslim himself. The article already mentions his alleged religious conversion as well; it might be helpful to note that Galloway was raised Catholic there for clarification. And, of course, his involvement Palestine and the Middle East is intractably bound up with religion. There have been a lot of speculative articles on the subject in the mainstream press, which would emphasise notability imo. Bangalamania (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry, I misread you. But why do you think his faith is relevant to his notability? Is his notability linked to his religion? — kashmīrī TALK 12:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the infobox; I was referring to the section which already exists within the article. (Under "Personal life") --Bangalamania (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- The
- That being said, could this not at least be added into the "religion" section of this article? Otherwise, it seems to read as if he were raised Muslim his whole life, which is obviously not true. The fact that Galloway is a Muslim convert seems pretty relevant to include, imo. Bangalamania (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Significant development to Ali-Khan legal case
There is a rather significant development in the Ali-Khan story that should be added once the article is unlocked, near the end of the "Other developments (2015–17)" section (retitled to 2018). I record a draft of the addition below. I cannot find a source giving the eventual outcome of Ali-Khan's petition to declare Galloway bankrupt (the latest info in the section), but in the light of seemingly no new cites on that topic and the new info below, the petition was likely unsuccessful:
- As part of the settlement of their libel claim, both Galloway and Ali Khan gave undertakings not to make any further public statement about the litigation or to defame each other. Galloway brought an action that Ali-Khan had breached this undertaking 26 times, which Ali-Khan admitted, and in April 2018 the High Court imprisoned Ali-Khan for 12 weeks for contempt of court, describing her action as "deliberate, flagrant, persistent and inexcusable". Ali-Khan had been found guilty of contempt of court on a previous occasion.[1][2][3]
Rwendland (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Black, Michael (19 April 2018). "George Galloway's former parliamentary assistant Aisha Ali-Khan jailed for contempt". Telegraph & Argus. Bradford. Retrieved 4 July 2018.
- ^ Kennedy, Dominic (23 March 2018). "Aisha Ali-Khan, former aide to George Galloway, may face jail". The Times. London. Retrieved 18 July 2018.
- ^ Mr Justice Warby (22 March 2018). "George Galloway -v- Aisha Ali-Khan" (PDF). High Court of Justice id=HQ14X01162. Retrieved 4 July 2018.
{{cite web}}
: Missing pipe in:|publisher=
(help)
Galloway's alleged support of Trump over Clinton
This statement is wrong, for the simple reason that it is an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. If Galloway says that Trump is a monster and Clinton is a bigger monster; it need not mean that he supports one over the other. It can mean that he supports neither one. A couple of news reports did interpret his comments as saying the former, but he clearly meant the latter.
This is made clear in this article in The Irish Times, straight from the horse's mouth.
On the US presidential election, Mr Galloway supports US Green Party candidate Jill Stein, but said he was misrepresented in recent reports suggesting he was in favour of US Republican party presidential candidate Donald Trump.
“I believe both Trump and Clinton are as dangerous as each other,” he said.
I suggest replacing the paragraph by the following:
In the 2016 US election, George Galloway supported US Green Party candidate Jill Stein. On the major party candidates, Galloway said variously: "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster." and "I believe both Trump and Clinton are as dangerous as each other". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- We can add the sentence "Galloway later backtracked, saying he considered Trump and Clinton equally dangerous. Galloway said he supported US Green Party candidate Jill Stein."„Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, that's absurd. There's no indication that he supported Trump in the first place, and where does this "backtracking" language come from? His first statement is largely consistent with the second one; it's just a clarification that he supports neither candidate.
If I say that communism is monstrous and Nazism is even more monstrous, and moreover that I am (a Liberal or Conservative or Social Democrat or Anarchist or Green); one wouldn't spin this declaration as "Kingsindian supports communism over Nazism". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- One candidate is preferable over another candidate =/= both candidates are equally bad. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with anything? In a multiparty system, people are allowed to support third-party candidates. This is absurd spin. Here's an interview between Galloway and Jill Stein from Feb 2016, before the tweet in the Politico article. In this interview, he says that Stein is the best candidate in the race, and calls Trump a "fascist". That is supporting Trump? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- We can add too to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I fully agree with Kingsindian here; saying that Galloway supports Trump is just being silly (at best). --NSH001 (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Text never said he supported Trump. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- The quote about Galloway considering Clinton to be "more dangerous than Trump" is already present in my version (see the second sentence). It is what Galloway said, minus the absurd spin of "Galloway supported Trump over Clinton", which is the current text. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- The current text says: "In the 2016 presidential election, Galloway favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, saying "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster."" This reflects what Galloway said, and it reflects what the RS says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- The quote about Galloway considering Clinton to be "more dangerous than Trump" is already present in my version (see the second sentence). It is what Galloway said, minus the absurd spin of "Galloway supported Trump over Clinton", which is the current text. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Text never said he supported Trump. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with anything? In a multiparty system, people are allowed to support third-party candidates. This is absurd spin. Here's an interview between Galloway and Jill Stein from Feb 2016, before the tweet in the Politico article. In this interview, he says that Stein is the best candidate in the race, and calls Trump a "fascist". That is supporting Trump? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- One candidate is preferable over another candidate =/= both candidates are equally bad. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, that's absurd. There's no indication that he supported Trump in the first place, and where does this "backtracking" language come from? His first statement is largely consistent with the second one; it's just a clarification that he supports neither candidate.
I'm not going to argue over this any more, since you're obviously not going to change your mind. <Wikilawyering mode: ON> The current text should be removed per WP:ONUS, because it is both wrong and misleading, and has no consensus. I proposed a new text that can be implemented or not, based on consensus. I don't much care if the latter happens, but the former should be done. Unfortunately, the page is locked, otherwise I would have done it myself. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Can someone put up an admin edit request for this to be included, since it has consensus (in clude me)?
In the 2016 US election, George Galloway supported US Green Party candidate Jill Stein. On the major party candidates, Galloway said variously: "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster." and "I believe both Trump and Clinton are as dangerous as each other". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- As it is the locked in page is a WP:BLP violation in making an inference about Galloway's fantasied support of Trump not in the source, and therefore should be removed immediately by the supervising admin. Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is not consensus for that version. Galloway said he favored Trump over Clinton, and then later said that they were equally dangerous. The text should reflect that he backtracked. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Let me do some elementary arithmetic.
- For the WP:BLP/WP:OR violation
- For Kingsindian's emendation which sticks to the known facts, and removed the BLP/OR violation
- I.e. You are on your own against three editors, The consensus is for removal, and replacement of the defective piece by the passage crafted by Kingsindian. Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, BLP demands that we adhere to reliable sources. BLP also requires that we don't whitewash and misrepresent content. Galloway clearly says he favored Trump over Clinton and later that he considered them equal. Why noting that simple fact is problematic for you, I do not know. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- The reliable sourece does not support your strategic manipulation of its text. It states five things:
- (1)“Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump.”
- (2) Galloway continued on Twitter, attacking Clinton as unable to compete in a general election with Trump.
- (3) He urged Sanders, who like Galloway’s Respect Party backs a policy agenda based in democratic socialism, to run a third-party campaign for president with Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein as his running mate.
- (4) “Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster. And he is sure going to monster her,” Galloway wrote in a second tweet.
- (5)“Sanders should run as an Independent with @DrJillStein as his running mate @SenSanders,” he posted minutes later.
- In boiling this down to
*In the 2016 presidential election, Galloway favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, saying "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster
- You have deliberately distorted the source and misrepresented the facts on Wikipedia.
- The evidence in your source shows without a shadow of ambiguity, in the 2016 elections Galloway did not favour Trump over Clinton. He (a) attacked Clinton as incompetent to run against Trump,(b) stated both were monsters; (c) said Trump, the lesser monster, would get the better of Clinton, and (d)advised Sanders to run against both.
- This is clear-cut. Three editors can see the obvious, and your distortion, with no third party backing, is the one that, injuriously, remains on the page. Disgraceful. (And I have no brief for Galloway).Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- If you can't comprehend that "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump" means one is worse than the other, then I don't know what I can do for you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- The reliable sourece does not support your strategic manipulation of its text. It states five things:
- No, BLP demands that we adhere to reliable sources. BLP also requires that we don't whitewash and misrepresent content. Galloway clearly says he favored Trump over Clinton and later that he considered them equal. Why noting that simple fact is problematic for you, I do not know. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Only an illerate or a malevolent editor can spin that to mean
*In the 2016 presidential election, Galloway favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton
- Learn to read, or stay off this page.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Politico: "[Galloway] says he prefers Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton."[12] It's weird how RS happen to agree with me on this. But yeah, I'm the one who needs to learn to read. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nishidani: There's no use in arguing with people if they aren't going to change their mind. I have opened an RfC below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever seen someone screw up a RfC as badly as yours. You do realize that an RfC is supposed to resolve a dispute? You don't even seem to understand what this dispute is about. Bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
RfC: George Galloway's position in the 2016 US election
Which of the following two versions should be included in the article? Indicate your preference: #1, #2 or Neither. Ranked preferences are also ok. 17:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
#1
2016 US presidential election
In the 2016 US presidential election, George Galloway supported US Green Party candidate Jill Stein. On the major party candidates, Galloway said variously: "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster." and "I believe both Trump and Clinton are as dangerous as each other".[1][2][3]
#2
Donald Trump
In the 2016 presidential election, Galloway favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, saying "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster."[3]
Survey
- Support #1 (#2 is not acceptable; neither would be better than #2): We should first say who Galloway supported (the answer is Jill Stein). We can then quote his feelings about the other two candidates. Galloway's attitude was, and has always been, "plague on both their houses". He did tweet on one occasion that "Trump is a monster, and Clinton is a bigger monster". This statement is duly noted in #1. He makes his position clear in the Irish Times source cited above, which talked to him directly, and didn't rely on tweets, like the Politico source does. And we can dispense with the argument that Galloway was somehow backtracking: he had an RT interview with Jill Stein in February 2016, and called her "the best candidate in the race".
To spin these facts as Galloway saying that he "favors Trump over Clinton" is absurd. If I say that "Nazism is monstrous. Communism is even more monstrous. I am a liberal democrat." It would be absurd to spin this as "Kingsindian supports Nazism over Communism". #2 is a clear distortion of the facts and extremely misleading. In a multiparty democracy, people are allowed to support third party candidates without this kind of distortion of their views. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Neither version. This RfC is nonsensical because #B lacks reliably sourced info and #A obfuscates and misrepresents Galloway. I made clear in a previous discussion on this that additional reliably sourced info could be added to #B, yet Kingsindian opted to present two flawed options rather than two options that concern the actual dispute that we had. The dispute is whether we should opt for #A or a version of #B that goes "In June 2016, Galloway said he favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, "Hillary Clinton is even more dangerous for America and the world than is Donald Trump. Trump is a monster. Clinton a bigger monster."[13] In September 2016, Galloway said his views on Trump and Clinton had been misrepresented, that he considered them "as dangerous as each other" and that he supported Jill Stein."[14] It's beyond my understanding why anyone would start a RfC that doesn't seek to resolve the actual differences. Totally bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
See discussion here. Further comments can be added below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Siggins, Lorna (2016-09-27). "Ex-MP George Galloway urges 'Ire-exit' EU referendum". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2018-07-19.
- ^ "'Clinton & Trump both representatives of oligarchy' - Jill Stein, Green Party presidential candidate". 2016-02-27. Retrieved 2018-07-19.
- ^ a b Nelson, Louis (2016-06-07). "George Galloway: Trump is better than Clinton". POLITICO. Retrieved 2018-07-19.
- If Galloway says that Stein is the best candidate in the race, then you need to note the time that he does it in that 25-minute RT interview (because I'm certainly not gonna watch a 25-minute Galloway-Stein interview), and then we can indeed add "In February 2016, Galloway said that he considered Stein the "best candidate" in the 2016 election to option #B. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- As for Galloway's comment on Stein, here's a Youtube video of the interview. The quoted comment comes at the very start.
As for the format of the RfC, please don't lecture me about how to start RfCs. I have opened plenty of RfCs in my time, and this one is completely proper. It follows all the guidelines: it has a short, neutral, clear header, and asks a concrete question instead of waffling about. It juxtaposes the text currently in the article (which you wrote, and has no consensus, btw), with a concrete suggestion for improvement. Let people comment on what they prefer. If people say: neither one, then so be it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with this is that it doesn't resolve the dispute. If people vote overwhelmingly for #A and that version gets inserted into the article, then I'll just edit in my proposed changes, because there won't have been any RfC on what my actual changes would look like. You do realize this? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- You are free to edit in your changes after this RfC finishes, but that does not mean that they will get consensus to stay in. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Right, so your RfC is completely pointless and a waste of everyone's time. Unless, the intent is to willfully introduce flawed text and then edit-war to keep improvements out of the article under the false appearance of "consensus"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- You are free to edit in your changes after this RfC finishes, but that does not mean that they will get consensus to stay in. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with this is that it doesn't resolve the dispute. If people vote overwhelmingly for #A and that version gets inserted into the article, then I'll just edit in my proposed changes, because there won't have been any RfC on what my actual changes would look like. You do realize this? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- As for Galloway's comment on Stein, here's a Youtube video of the interview. The quoted comment comes at the very start.