Talk:George Galloway

i am looking for a link to corroborate the Galloway quote. At present I can only find his denials. Perhaps someone could look at a Times archive? This should be available in an English University.


 * Huh? His denials? Link? As far as I know, there's no dispute over the exact words, but the audio and/or newspaper transcript isn't online. I added the note at start because this text doesn't seem to be available anywhere beside blogs and message boards, therefore wikiquote shouldn't host it as if it's verified and thus allow others to link to wikiquote and give the impression that it's a credible source. As far as I know, Galloway doesn't deny the actual words, but he said that by "Sir: I salute..." he didn't mean to refer to Saddam, but rather to the Iraqi people, and he should have used better words there. Please post here links with any other relevant info. iddo999 01:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The last occasion he disputed the reporting of the "I salute" quote was in a brodcast interview on BBC Hardtalk. Galloway states over and over in the interview that he has been misquoted and that he was in fact saluting the Iraqi people. viewable here Made a note of that fact in the article.


 * Nice interview. Funny that the interviewer said that he read this speech on the internet... Probably he read it here or on some weird blog or message board, because reliable websites carrying this speech still don't seem to exist. The following questions remain: (1) are the words here the same as those printed in the Times 1994 article? I guess they are, but I haven't seen evidence for this either. (2) if they are, did that article specify how exactly it got hold of that speech, i.e. maybe via a BBC radio broadcast or something like that? (3) If it is indeed claimed that there's audio evidence that these words are accurate, is it possible to get this evidence? (4) are there reliable witnesses who were present during this speech and claim that it's accurate?
 * Without evidence to (1), we should probably just delete the whole thing. If (2) is false, maybe we should keep it and mention that there aren't any reliable sources that can verify it. iddo999 09:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Its not like Galloway disputes he gave the speech, although who knows what speech text Sackur was talking about. Galloway seems fairly confident such a speech text does not exist. His comments on the quote are: "Secondly, I did not salute his [Hussain's] courage, strength and indefatigability, I saluted the Iraqi peoples courage, strength and indefatigability which if you saw the whole of the speech you would know to be true." Sackur breaks and theres a back and forth then Galloway goes on to say: "If you had read the whole speech you would know that the 'your', Y-O-U-R in question, was the Iraqi people."


 * In making my edit I used the word misquote to describe Galloways complaint. From the 2nd vieweing of the Sackur interview im not sure if Galloway disputes the quote of the word "Sir" prefacing the salute statement OR he claims the speech is taken out of context. Having checked for other comments I think the latter;
 * "I had intended to salute - and, as far as I was concerned, had saluted - not Saddam Hussein or his regime in Baghdad but the 'courage, strength and indefatigability' of the Iraqi people. With hindsight, I can see my choice of words was unfortunate." Speaking to Jasper Gerard of the Sunday Times, he elaborated. "He says [writes Gerard] he should have used the 'old-fashioned Scottish word yoos, rather than you', to show his tribute was to the country, not its leader."


 * So in comments to the Sunday Times he is not disputing that part of the quote but how it was (in his view) misconstrued. A source where Galloway states or agrees on the text (or a part of the text) of what he reportedly said might do. A reliable transcipt/recording would be best- then readers can discover the context Galloway mentions. Either way its probably only fair to include a quote from Galloway in which he makes his complaint. On sources; I dont consider MEMRI reliable in anyway. MEMRI's frequent mistranslation of Arabic and heavy editing of english language interviews given to mideast broadcasters goes way beyond any 'institutional/cultural bias' that might be found in BBC World Service/Times reporting.


 * Hmm the clown in your guardian link isn't reliable either, but if indeed Galloway confirmed that all of the words by themselves are accurate, that would be the most simple way to settle it. Maybe someone could ask him, on his radio show or via email or something? iddo999 20:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It still seems to be the case that only wikiquote is carrying the transcript of this speech (i.e. no reliable websites have it), even though the BBC appears to have the full video footage (see and ). This transcript was added anonymously to wikiquote 4 years ago, and it's unclear whether or not it's accurate. What comes after "courage, strength and indefatigability" in this transcript differs from the video footage on youtube, though it's quite possible that the video was cut at that point and an earlier segment (that indeed appears in this transcript) of the speech was inserted. So in particular the ending of this transcript may or may not be accurate. The policy of wikiquote (and wikipedia) is to cite only reliable sources (especially in the case of living people), so unfortunately we might have to remove this transcript (and replace it with just that famous one-line "I salute..." quote), unless a reliable source for this transcript can be found. iddo999 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Philip Cross should not be editing the article George Galloway
has been a valuable editor at Wikiquote, contributing much good material and good sense. Nevertheless, he should not edit this article, per Wikipedia's COIBLP: "[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." Wikipedia has already been significantly and publicly embarrassed by Cross on this issue. I had privately sent email to Cross about this, asking him to stop editing this article, to avoid public embarrassment. Instead, 18 edits to this article today, 11 on February 14, etc. The en-wiki topic bans don't apply here, but I believe COIBLP does. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I disagree Ottawahitech (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I have not seen any confirmation in twelve days on the point HouseOfChange makes. In fact, it has gained no response on the administrator's noticeboard. Philip Cross (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * And User talk:HouseOfChange made another plea two days later with the same result: no response. Galloway's 1994 speech to Saddam Hussein (cut by HouseofChange in its entirety on 20 February) and his 2012 defence of Julian Assange (the most quoted part also removed by HouseOfChange on the same date), are surely the most essential comments by Galloway to include in this page, still much quoted. The deletion of this material is bad practice and George Galloway might well choose to remove such material himself, if he could. Philip Cross (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I cut those two lengthy "quotes" because they seemed verbose and "unquotable" to me. I did it without realizing that two particular bits of what I removed were short quotes treasured by critics of Galloway. When PC restored the beloved bit of the Saddam talk ("Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability,") I had no objection. Similarly, when PC restored the beloved bit of the Assange talk ("not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion"), I also had no objection. If you look at my  Wikipedia userpage, you can see that I have often in the past "tried to maintain NPOV, BLP, and WEIGHT" on a lot of BLPs there. I had a similar motivation to undo the misuse of Wikiquote as a free web-hosting service to the reprehensible state of the George Galloway article as of February 16, 2024, when I made my first edit to it. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Rushdie
The quote about his opinion on the ban of Salman Rushdie's novel seem quotable to me. His opinion on a significant contemporary matter is both interesting and worth quoting.

If there’s any issue with editorializing, simply omit the commentary. On some new pages a lot of commentary is added which are not part of the quotes. Adding personal commentary tends to be pov pushing.

To reduce the issue of editorializing and bias, one can simply exclude the personal commentary.

They have a right to expect some genuflection towards what they feel. To publish a paperback would cause an unnecessary distress to a large and significant and vulnerable section of our society. ᘙ (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * [Galloway had described the UK's laws on blasphemy (then still on the statute book) as an "anachronism"] All faiths must be prepared to be as rigorously tested as each other and none can expect a special hiding place behind the law.
 * [As part of The Satanic Verses controversy, there was a debate in the UK on the desirability of publishing a paperback edition of Salman Rushdie's novel] I'm arguing this should not be published, not because of the threats but because of the offence that it has caused to the majority of Muslims.
 * As cited in "We ask MPs where they stand", The Independent on Sunday (11 February 1990), p. 22


 * The quote specifically refers to the paperback edition, not the initial publication in hardback or Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa, which George Galloway appears to have made no sourced comment about at the time. Philip Cross (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The quote makes it clear that it refers to the censorship of the paperback edition. IMHO this still makes the quote interesting and quotable. --ᘙ (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oops thanks, my mistake. Sorry for my foolish deletion of your comments. Philip Cross (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I accept the suggestion to restore the two actual Galloway quotes minus the POV-pushing commentary. But I disagree that "quotable" means "worth quoting" in the sense of being important, informative, true, relevant, etc. This is WikiQuote, not WikiGoodIdeas or WikiInformationSnippets. "Quotability" implies artfulness, originality, cleverness of expression. Remarks that have been widely quoted, such as Galloway's various gaffes, qualify as quotable by default. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)