Talk:George Galloway

Archive

Talk:George Galloway/Archive 1:1) netrality1, 2) Neutrality2, 3) On neutrality 4) Political Views section, 5) Quotes section, 6) netrality1, 7) Neutrality2, 8) On neutrality, 9) Political Views section, 10) Quotes section, 11) Is his missus really a muslim?, 12) POV, 13) Matter vs. Anti-Matter, 14) User:Sandpiper please read No original research, 15) London bombings comment, 16) Having your cake and eating it too, 17) Image, 18) The mighty rhetorician, George Galloway, 19) Deleted sections, 20) Revert war: Should this link be in this article?, 21) Met Saddam Twice in Intro Paragraph or Not?, 22) Debate, 23) Vandalism, 24) Early and personal life

Consistently accused of heinous things, then cleared by subsequent investigation

As Finlay McWalter observes in the neatrality2 section of this talk page:

you'll see a consistent pattern of GG being accused of something terrible, threatening to sue, and either winning outright or the something terrible turning out to be something exceptionally mild or largely unproven ... it more accurately shows the pattern of GG being repeatedly accused of things he mostly hasn't done."

This seems to be a valid point, and one that is not included in the article. George Galloway has a remarkably clean record. There are several British MPs who have shadier background, yet seem to avoid the same number of 'accusations of serious wrongdoing' as Galloway. So for the sake of discussion

1) Has George Galloway been the victim of more false accusations than is normal for a politician
2) If so, why?
3) If so, from who?
--Fergie 11:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have plenty of opionions as to why GG has been subjected to attempts at villification (cf. Scargill), however Wikipedia is an atempt to build an encyclopedia from other sources not a place for orrignal reasarch/conjecture. If you/me/us want to get stuff about why GG has been victimised (yes thats POV language) you/me/us need to find peices of work that discuss the issue, I.E. Newpaper reports etc.

Here's one for a start: Roy Greenslade (no fan of GG) sugests that it is because "he has become so unpopular with both the media and political elites that they regard him as outside the normal rules of the game" i.e he is their new "leftwing whipping boy" [1]

--JK the unwise 17:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your reason is very good and quite valid, but only in recent years. It can not explain why it happened in the first place. I agree with you that we should build on existing material, not do original research ourselves. but i would see blogs, as well as newspapers, as an acceptable source nowadays. So excellent analysis should not be dismissed because it is not written by an "actual" reporter.

--80.131.117.233 17:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Introductory rhetoric

The opening sentence says he's known for his "rhetorical skill". I'm sure some of his opponents would dispute that he has any, and to be honest the article does not address his skill level at all, though there are certainly plenty of examples of his rhetoric. How about if we change this to "fiery rhetoric"? --Michael Snow 20:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with that proposed change. Galloway is noted for his rhetorical skill. The right-tilting American Spectator says so. [2] The Boston Globe says so. [3]. He was awarded "Debater of the Year."[4] It's true some of his opponents would begrudge him any characteristic that could possibly be regarded as positive (and I'm not even sure "rhetorical skill" is in fact positive). Some of them would probably go along with "rhetorical skill." But this is supposed to be an NPOV article and what his opponents think of him is not particularly relevant. DanielM 22:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're referring to this (you provided the Boston Globe link twice), it seems to be not the American Spectator directly saying so, but indirectly attributing this concession to "pundits". But anyway, my point is that the article fails entirely to discuss what Galloway's rhetorical skills are or any discerning evaluation of them. As a result, the content doesn't justify a positive statement (and yes, it is positive) that Galloway is noted for his rhetorical skill, and certainly not as an undisputed assertion leading off the article. Hence my suggested change; if you want the statement to remain, please add some content to the article that discusses how his abilities are viewed. --Michael Snow 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You clicked on that link fast! I had inserted the same one twice by accident, but corrected it ten minutes later. You got to it in the intervening ten minutes. I see you found the correct article quickly enough. I trust the other two links I provided addressed your first point. His rhetorical skill is pretty obvious, as you said it is only some of his opponents who surely would dispute it (though some of the less miserly ones would no doubt grant it). You say "rhetorical skill" is praise however I find that rhetoric has a negative connotation. "Skill" does have a positive connotation, but I can't help thinking we're splitting hairs. Your suggestion of "fiery rhetoric" successfully removes any sort of positive connotation (in favor of a somewhat negative one, it seems), but this aspect of Galloway is already addressed as "confrontational style." I don't think we should have to include a section summarizing his rhetorical skill, I think it's a given. --DanielM.

Ah, I didn't notice you had updated the link by the time I had written out my reply. Anyway, it is most assuredly not a given; nothing is a given. Saying that Galloway is noted for his rhetorical skill is a bald assertion. If the remaining content of the article does not discuss and establish this assertion, it should be removed. --Michael Snow 17:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

By saying it is a given, I mean that it is generally accepted and not seriously disputed. I gave three sources that affirm it, there are no doubt many, many more. Wiki articles make other non-controversial statements like this. This one also says he favors wealth redistribution and more welfare, does not discuss and establish that. If you are going to argue for its removal, please at least disagree with it first. DanielM 23:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What does it matter whether I agree with it? I haven't read or listened to Galloway enough to have a firm opinion. But that's exactly the problem, which is that this is a statement of opinion, not fact, given as a critical assessment and evaluation of his personal qualities. As such, it needs to be substantiated within the article. With respect to his policy positions, stating what those are is a statement of fact. And even those ought to be properly sourced. To some extent they can be confirmed with the external link to the Respect party site, which discusses policy issues, I suppose. --Michael Snow 00:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I accept your differentiation between a generally accepted critical assessment and a fact statement. It's fair enough to point out that if the article refers upfront to Galloway's debating prowess and talent for turning a phrase, it should cover that in the article body. I do think that this quality is indeed a part of who he is and how he is perceived and that this part of the intro text should stay, so I will see about putting something to cover it in the article body. I do not know when I will be able to do that, so I have no objection to you amending the text as you see fit in the meantime. Thanks for a good discussion on this and for not rushing in with hasty changes. DanielM 10:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I won't make the change I initially suggested, since as you pointed out earlier it's slightly redundant. The current phrasing is okay if that's an important aspect of his persona, as seems to be the case, but the article is simply incomplete. If we can agree on that, then I'll wait to see what is done to make it more complete. --Michael Snow 16:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

FAC

I think this is a good article and could be a featured article with a little bit of work. The objections to it currently being a fetured article (listed at Featured article candidates/George Galloway) are:

• Not enough clarity on status 3 of the images. 2 fair use and one 'non-commercial'. According to Stephen Turner the first image rellies on a dubious fair use claim as the article is not about Newsnight.
• Needs to be better structured.
• Needs more information on his time as an Labour MP.

The first two shouldn't be to hard to sort out and the third is just a matter of finding some more info'. --JK the unwise 16:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have replaced Image:George_Galloway_MP.jpg with Image:George Galloway.png which is from promotional material released during the election so as I understand it is a better candidate for fair use claim.--JK the unwise 16:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me JK. I am never happy with TV screen captures (fair use issues notwithstanding), and they are never of adequate quality. It also follows the Manual of Style more faithfully as he is looking in towards the body of the article. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

News on corruption allegations

See this article. Adraeus 00:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I read your post after adding a section on this from a BBC news article. If you think there is any more relavant info' from the Scotsman paper to add, please add it.--JK the unwise 12:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

When I posted that link, I had not found any mention of it, so this link was simply information for the contributors to this article. By the way, I don't think this article mentions any of Galloway's television and cable appearances (e.g., Galloway on Real Time HBO with Bill Maher) Adraeus 14:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

On the Campaign Group

The Campaign Group has been open about its membership, and a check on membership lists through the years shows no G. Galloway among them. Unless he joined for a brief period it seems that he was not a member. David | Talk 22:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This maybe so but "Despite his left-wing reputation.." is not a NPOV way to put it.--JK the unwise 17:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. However there is a point to be made about that - George Galloway's pronouncements now and allegiance with the far left may give the impression that he was on the very far left of the Labour Party during his time in it, but this was not the case at the time. Galloway was on the left but not the far left, and not among the most rebellious. Incidentally he didn't join the Tribune Group either. David | Talk 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Whole section removed - why?

Some time ago I uploaded some images concerning the evidence of presented to the commitee of Galloway's alleged involvement in the Oil for Food programme. I am distressed that Juicifier decided to delete these images along with the body of text that a large number of users had helped edit - wholesale. Please DO NOT delete large parts of the article without discussion. It shows bad faith! Jooler 07:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, wholesale deletion absent discussion shows arrogance and bad faith, especially when it is a section that has been there for a while and was no doubt the product of much careful editing and back and forth among editors when it was originally authored. I am glad you were watching and restored that bit. I think it is a good bit with interesting, unusual graphics of those suspect documents. Galloway has been impugned with forged documents previously such as those the Christian Science Monitor relied on and later had to apologize for. So it's good to address this stuff. DanielM 01:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole section I believe you are talking about, was in essence a rehashing of an article on the SWP website. It didn't help that the SWP is Galloway's organisation in effect, but the content was drivel. If you read the Senate+UN reports regarding Galloway you see why the responce is fraudulent. Furthermore, just to the naked eye, there are many differing fonts on the pages, not just two.

It couldn't have been there for more than three days. Making note of Galloway's respopnce is in order, but arguing through a detiled responce from a POV organisation closely linked with the man himself allong with multiple images is not. Especially when it nonsence.

I won't delete it again but I will add a NPOV header to the article until this issue is resolved.

jucifer 02:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're the one who is talking nonsense. I don't know what you mean about three days; the section was there for months before you came along. This paragraph was the subject of a great deal of debate here. See the archives. The SWP article, brought the issue to my attention and I copied the relevant pages from the original Duelfer report to Wikipedia. I am certainly not an organ of the SWP. I and several other authors spent quite some time arguing the toss over the wording. The paragraph is using the very same evidence that was used against Galloway at the comittee hearing, i.e. his name appearing on some documents, and merely highlighting the some details about the so-called evidence that has not been highlighted in the mainstream media. You are quite wrong to say that "a rehashing of an article on the SWP website." because the SWP page doesn't demonstrate all of the inconsistencies of the evidence as this article does. I and several other authors have looked at the original documents in detail - There is no POV position here. The reader can make up their mind as to the significance or otherwise of the inconsistencies. Read the archives and see how the paragraph evolved. Jooler 07:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just noticed that this page does not appear to have been archived correctly. I was looking for the debate regarding the Duelfer report pages. It is not in the archive given above, but is on this page when I look back at a version from August. I don't have time to sort this out. Jooler 07:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Labour Party NEC election, 1986

Unfortunately I don't have the full results here but the candidates in the CLP section (for seven seats) included Jack Ashley, Stuart Bell, Tony Benn, David Blunkett, Tam Dalyell, George Galloway, Eric Heffer, Gerald Kaufman, Michael Meacher, Austin Mitchell, Giles Radice, Jo Richardson, George Robertson, Dennis Skinner and Audrey Wise. There were certainly others. Galloway's position as next to last is important as demonstrating his popularity within the Labour Party generally at the time. David | Talk 10:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested the full results are available in Labour Party Annual Conference Report 1986. David | Talk 17:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Motion of no confidence

Please see Almanac of British Politics by Waller, 5th ed., page 385: "Soon after election in 1987 he .. suffered no-confidence votes in his constituency party". David | Talk 17:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The visitation of Saddam

I have previously said on this talk page (now archived) that the Saddam visits must remain in the opening para and I hold to all the reasons I stated then. They are one of the most important aspects in the way George Galloway is perceived. Indeed it is only fair to warn anyone editing this article that I will revert any removal of this claim from the first paragraph as a blatant POV attempt to gloss over an unsavoury part of Galloway's history. David | Talk 22:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to gloss over anything, but as I said in my edit summaries, putting these things in the opening paragraph makes the article look bad - it is is just flagging up that the article is going to be a hatchet job. Imagine reading in the opening paragraph of an article on G W Bush that he is an alcoholic draft dodger. Those are also facts that should not be glossed over, but they don't belong in the opening para. Since you clearly enjoy edit wars, and since I get bored of them very very quickly, I don't doubt that you will prevail here. That doesn't make you right. GrahamN 22:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Your comparison is not really comparable. Bush's conviction for drink driving occurred about thirty years ago; no-one has, to my knowledge, cast doubt on the fact that Bush no longer drinks alcohol. His personal circumstances during the Vietnam war are not the first thing people think about when they hear his name. This is all very much in contrast with George Galloway who remains in close touch with the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party of Syria, which has a very similar ideology to that of Iraq. I disagree that it leads the reader to expect a 'hatchet job' (which the article is not, in any case). Nor do I enjoy edit wars overmuch. As a matter of fact I liked your change to the second para on the formation of RESPECT. David | Talk 22:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Graham is right, David is wrong. The point here is that Galloway is a Scottish politician, with a long and noteworthy career. To characterise the meeting with Saddam in the opening paragraph as a defining moment of Galloways life is to negate almost his entire political existance. The opening paragraph of a political biography should, by convention, consist of raw information (age, marital status, political affiliations, place of birth, race, schooling/education, employment (past/present), bibliography, etc.), coupled with a brief note on their ideological orientation. Graham rightly points out that the opening paragraph in this article sets the scene for a 'hatchet job'. Compare the opening paragraph with that of fellow guest-of-Saddam Donald Rumsfeld and draw your own conclusions... Fergie 11:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree. Your assessment that Galloway has "a long and noteworthy career" sounds like a eulogy. Galloway has none of the attributes of a successful political career (high office, general respect, that sort of thing). The Saddam visits (especially that of 1994) are the key element in defining how Galloway is perceived by the general public, and hardly 'negates .. his entire political existence'. They were so untypical of British politicians that they stand out, and they are usually the single episode from Galloway's career that his opponents pick upon if they wish to attack him. The actual phrasing in the article is quite generous, crediting the meetings to his campaign against sanctions rather than to anything more 'profitable' (which there would be evidence to support). There is all the difference in the world between a backbench MP with no constituency interest in Iraq meeting the President of Iraq and reporting high praise, and an official of the United States government who has the job of communicating with the Arab leaders meeting with one of them to try to further United States policy, so I do not accept the Donald Rumsfeld comparison.

The Rumsfeld article is not one I would choose as a comparator because it is, to my mind, very badly written. I would expect the lead para of the biography of Donald Rumsfeld to state the fact that Rumsfeld was one of the few Secretaries of Defense to adopt a belligerent attitude to foreign affairs, and to cite him as an outspoken supporter of the Iraq war and as one who had influence on the President in that regard. Perhaps you ought to compare the Galloway article to George Brown, Baron George-Brown, a featured article, where the lead para mentions Brown's approach to politics, brief holding of high office, and personal problems. David | Talk 12:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Galloway has indeed had a long and noteworthy career. It may have none of the attributes of success by which members of the privately educated English upper class measure themselves, but to his constituents, he is clearly held in high regard. Galloway is untypical as a British politician precisely because he is typical as a Scotsman. It is right and proper, although sadly rare, that people who are representitive of their constituencies are elected to office. For this reason his politics should not be treated as outlandish- by the standards of Dundee and Glasgow they are mainstream. His meeting with Saddam is noteworthy, but not defining. What defines George Galloway is his background and his uncompromising alignment with issues of social justice- not a brief encounter with somebody who came to be the bogeyman of the hour years later. Although this is the issue that grabbed the attention of US and the English establishment, it is not of primary importance when understanding Galloway as a man.

We should avoid writing intros to biographical entries in the style of the current George Brown revision. Pertinant details are omitted (place of birth, etc.), the inability of cope with office without drinking should really be examined in greater depth in a separate section. Remember: wikipedia is a source of info, not a stage for literary flourishes.

Also: Far from having 'no constituency interests in Iraq' both the Kelvin and Bethnal constituencies have a large islamic demographic- this has been one of the main factors behind Galloways various overtures to the Islamic world.Fergie 13:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

'Held in high regard by his constituents'? He has a majority of 823 and didn't get even 36% of the vote. Success in politics is a pretty simple thing to measure: how many of the things a politician campaigns for actually happen because of their campaigns? With Galloway it's practically zero. As for a typical Scotsman, I must have missed that aspect of the Scots character that makes them compulsively fly to Arab states and fawn over the dictators thereof; in fact there's only one Scotsman I know of who does that. And then we are supposed to 'understand Galloway as a man' - a pure invitation to have your POV. Hillhead/Kelvin had a minimal Islamic population, and both there and Bethnal Green the Islamic population is almost entirely from the Indian subcontinent and not Arabs. Incidentally you don't seem to be familiar with the Manual of Style in particular for biographies as your statements about desirable articles are directly contradicted by it. David | Talk 14:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

David, you obviously like to get your own way, and are a committed revert warrior. This last post merely demonstrates your clear anti-Galloway POV. I agree wholeheartedly with GrahamN and Fergie that the Iraq focus in the lead section is overly prominent and unbalances the article neutrality. As to the statement that I will revert any removal of this claim from the first paragraph as a blatant POV attempt to gloss over an unsavoury part of Galloway's history, well that is just unbelievable arrogance. I, and other editors, are entitled to edit this article as we see fit David, you do not have ownership nor the right of veto. As things stand, you are losing this argument and I will remove this in a few days unless there are compelling arguments to the contrary. As an aside, it is pleasing to see that you have refrained from re-inserting your ridiculous comparison with the BNP, which was just inserted to avoid 3RR and carry out a spot of trolling for good measure. --84.67.14.5 15:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The primary reason that the two Saddam visits are in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article is because DBiv (David) insists on it, at least this is what I gather from this debate and the previous one that he refers to. I'm not totally averse to it from a rational standpoint, I mean you got to talk about something in the first para and I guess it could be that. But I never really understood it as a rational decision either. It plays to a negative POV of Galloway. People who want to deride him frequently start off by implying that he's a Saddam lover. "He met Saddam twice and said he salutes his indefatigibility" or something like that. Senator Norm Coleman did that, well actually ol' Norm said he met with Saddam "many times." People like that are looking to get Saddam's satanicness to rub off on Galloway. Galloway has done a lot of stuff in his career, so it's a little suspicious that people want to lean on that if they aspire to be balanced and objective. But DBiv on the other hand says preemptively that any editor who dares remove the Saddam visits from the first paragraph is "blatantly POV." That doesn't much respect those editors who may have different, valid viewpoints on what the first paragraph should consist of, and I do think it is somewhat arrogant. DanielM 02:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

But if someone were to change the para, they need to find something good and NPOV to change it to. And they should include some of the negative stuff, but should be able to improve on "Campaigning against sanctions on Iraq, he made several visits to that country and met Saddam Hussein in 1994 and 2002; he was expelled from the Labour Party in October 2003 after controversial statements against the 2003 invasion of Iraq including "Iraq is fighting for all the Arabs... Where are the Arab armies?" Condense that or trim one negabit or the other? And don't get me started on that semicolon... ;) DanielM 02:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As a number of people have pointed out (including David), Galloway's meetings with Saddam are one of the major point that people bring up when they want to attack him. When we have someone, who clearly has a negative opinion of the man, insisting that the first paragraph mention the meetings with Saddam, how can this be anything but POV. AlistairMcMillan 03:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a POV statement that Galloway visited Saddam twice - it's a matter of uncontested fact. NPOV means that critical and supportive views are treated the same. The lead para already brings out supportive views. Suppressing something critical of Galloway would therefore unbalance it. Hope this helps. David | Talk 09:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not the statement tha's POV, it's the prominence in the lead. The only supportive view in the lead refers to his rhetorical skill. The rest is neutral fact or negative statements such as the references to confrontational style and controversial statements. Coupled with the over prominence of the Iraq visits in this lead section, the opening of this article is unbalanced and reads like the start of an anti-Galloway polemic. --84.67.153.81 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is quite clear that consensus is against you David. Please do not revert the changes without support. AlistairMcMillan 22:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That is untrue, and in any case force of numbers is irrelevant. The point is that Galloway's visit to Saddam, coupled with the accusations of his having personally or through an agent profited from Oil for Food deals, distinguish him from almost every other active politician who opposed sanctions. I have been lenient so far in not going far down this road but I may revise that view if I find an uncooperative attitude from those with a pro-Galloway perspective. David | Talk 22:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all get off your high horse. Making threats isn't the best way idea.

Why does the page on Tony Benn not mention his visits to Saddam in the first paragraph? How can removing the mention of his visits with Saddam possibly be an attempt "to gloss over an unsavoury part of Galloway's history" when we go into them in detail further down the page? AlistairMcMillan 00:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not making threats. I am simply saying that if the present consensus (which is highly favourable to Galloway) is disturbed I shall promote the case which I really believe in. The reason why Tony Benn's page does not mention his visits to Saddam is that they are small part in his public perception, which is not the case with George Galloway. Stop ten people on the street and ask them to name something George Galloway has done and the most common response will be that he visited Saddam. Ditto for Tony Benn and they won't. David | Talk 00:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"I have been lenient..." sounds like a threat to me. Stop ten people on the street and ask them why Tony and George invaded Iraq and the most common response will be "oil". I'll wait for you to add that to the first paragraph of Tony Blair, George W. Bush and 2003 Invasion of Iraq. We are not here to represent public perception. Meanwhile I'll point out that you have reverted my edit three times, I'm sure you are aware of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. AlistairMcMillan 00:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, how about this for a compromise. We mention that he visited Saddam, but also mention that he also campaigned against Saddam in the 70s, in the first paragraph. Mention that he campaigned against Saddam while the UK and US were supporting him in the first paragraph. Mention that he visited Iraq a number of times and met with a number of people, not just Saddam, in the first paragraph. Comments? Why are we focussing on the single sound-bite point that everyone uses to attack Galloway? How can that be anything BUT POV? AlistairMcMillan 00:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to do more on the extent of Galloway's anti-Saddam campaigning. He appears to have been a member of CARDRI (Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq) who were a Third International-linked group in alliance with the Communist Party of Iraq which the Baathists suppressed. He has mentioned demonstrating outside the Iraqi 'Cultural Centre' in Tottenham Court Road which was opened c. 1978 and closed by the time of the liberation of Kuwait. However, merely being a member of a group and campaigning is not particularly notable. For instance I would not put in my biography that I was a noted campaigner against Robert Mugabe, although I did join a demo outside the Zimbabwe High Commission more than ten years ago and long before the general public had noticed that Mugabe was a tyrant.

I notice you accept the significance of the visit: you've accepted my point. Ipso facto if a sound-bite is used by 'everyone' to attack Galloway it must be of extreme significance. Otherwise it's like arguing that it's POV to say the Titanic's maiden voyage was a failure because of one incident, or that Dr Crippen was a successful homeopath and we shouldn't let the only crime he committed dominate the article. David | Talk 00:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't accept your point at all. A sound-bite can be used by everyone and still be incorrect. AlistairMcMillan 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The lead, as edited by AlistairMcMillan, is an improvement to the opening of the article. I see that David engaged in 4 reverts between 21.34 and 00.52. This is very disappointing behaviour from an Admin and has been filed on WP:AN/3RR. --84.68.228.215 09:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked him earlier this morning for 24 hours. AlistairMcMillan 09:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The Manual of Style

To better explan my reply to Fergie above, see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). From the latter:

The opening paragraph should give:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles))
2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death)
3. Nationality
4. What they did
5. Why they are significant.

The fourth and fifth are the most important for the casual reader. David | Talk 14:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)