Snowlocust

Welcome!

Hello, Snowlocust, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --John (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so if the admins themselves believe having Islamic beliefs is "defamatory" then I guess the inherent anti-Islamic agenda is more deep rooted than I thought Snowlocust (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. If you can hold off on any more reverts that'll be great. --John (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You were not blocked because of any alleged agenda. You were blocked because you were edit warring and violating the 3RR rule. The proper way to handle such a dispute is to talk it over on the article's talk page, and put in controversial edits only after a consensus has been reached. Ravenswing 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't refactor your talk page while you are blocked. Once the block expires, you can remove the block notice but not until then. --John (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at George Galloway. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Snowlocust (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The three reverts weren't true reversions, were they? E.g. in some cases reverting my own work. Snowlocust (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Clear edit war. Please don't try further WP:Wikilawyering. Toddst1 (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Question for administrator

I recently added a small section to George Galloway's page about some Islamic practises he follows.

A short while after I received this, and I quote:

"Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)"

This admin thinks that being associated with Islamic beliefs is "defamatory"? I find this offensive and very prejudiced.

Edit: I asked this question a few hours ago, and the admin above deleted it before it was answered. Wow.

--Snowlocust (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you're right and I apologise for removing your previous request here. I did not look far enough down the page when reverting your removal of your block notice, which stays up for the duration of the block. --John (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well then, no problem I guess. Is there anything you want to say about the above statement regarding Islam being (in your opinion) "defamatory"? Sorry for asking this. Fact is that I haven't been here long but the amount of anti-Islamic bias and bigotry within the userbase that I have seen so far I find simply disgusting (maybe because the only article I have been editing is George Galloway, a figurehead for anti-Islam bashing).

• This is not strictly an issue which requires administrator comment. It appears that John has acknowledged an error in removing your original question. So, what remains is, more or less, a rhetorical exercise. If you are seeking some specific action or remedy, please state it. I'll watchlist this page in the event you require further clarification. Regards Tiderolls 00:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you have some sort of system that punishes people in positions of authority from bigoted/prejudiced views? What would your action be if, hypothetically, one of your admins had a racist rant about black people? I view this in the same light (he thinks saying someone has Islamic beliefs is "defamatory")Snowlocust (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hate speech is not tolerated, be it from any editor. We try to avoid punishment; if one wants to contribute here constructively, they may. If one has no desire to edit constructively, we usually encourage them to move to whatever venue or forum caters to their fancy. That you believe someone equates Islamic beliefs with defamation is something on which I cannot comment; it's your opinion. Tiderolls 00:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, he said it right here after I made an addition to the George Galloway article saying he held some Islamic beliefs: " Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)" Snowlocust (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the rhetorical exercise I referred to earlier. I'm not contesting what was posted, your perception(s) of intent are your own; as such, I am unable to offer comment. They are your opinions. Tiderolls 00:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And as I said, the equating of "Islamic belief" to "defamatory" is not an opinion, it is a fact (it happened). And that someone equates the two means that the person holds bigoted/prejudiced beliefs is also a fact. No opinions there, just two facts. For example, Person X: "He is black" Person Y: "That's an insult and defamatory!" In this case Person Y clearly holds prejudiced/bigoted beliefs. Are you telling me that you are not going to do anything about this? If so, is it possible I could get another opinion, because I (hope, more than anything) that Wikipedia doesn't allow that kind of stuff to be posted. Snowlocust (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course you may seek other opinions. Is the point you are attempting to make related to your block in some way? Tiderolls 00:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. Let me repeat for you, one last time, very clearly, what my question is. I BELIEVE THAT ONE OF YOUR ADMINS IS PREJUDICED/HOLDS BIGOTED BELIEFS AGAINST ISLAM. HOW CAN I PURSUE THIS FURTHER?Snowlocust (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me be equally frank; your opinion is the result of a misunderstanding. Now, I can help you if you wish but my help will be for naught if you are unwilling to listen. Tiderolls 00:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"your opinion is the result of a misunderstanding" No, it isn't. Care to explain why you think that? Snowlocust (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. Can you show me the diff for the post in question? Tiderolls 00:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Here is the greater post: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASnowlocust&diff=485211136&oldid=485133510 , the offending part specifically is the inclusion of the 3 lines concerning defamatory content.

The post you reference is a warning template. Templates, for the most part, are unalterable in their wording. Some have optional fields and some do not. The wording of the template in no way indicates the intent of the poster to be insensitive. Templates are shorthand and can do both the poster and receiver a disservice. I can message John to come here and explain further if you wish. I have full confidence that your perception does not match his intent. Tiderolls 00:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC) My post edit conflicted with the following, but you can see the explanations are the same

I appreciate that, but that still doesn't address the issue. Please answer this. Why would the user see someone wrote "George has some Islamic beliefs" and immediately send him a template warning concerning defamatory content? Clearly the user believes that saying "George has some Islamic beliefs" is equal to defamatory content. This is bigotry. Snowlocust (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I can appreciate the frustration of being blocked, I've been on the cusp a couple of times myself. I've offered my explanation for the situation, as has another admin. That you are not satisfied with our explanations is regrettable but we really have no control over your level of contentment. If you want to writhe and squirm in an unconstructive exercise, well, it's your time to waste. One really should listen to more experienced voices when one is new, but all we can do is show you the water. Drink, don't drink...it's your choice. Tiderolls 01:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I just asked you a simple question which you failed to answer. Also I have no idea why you are talking about me being blocked, it has absolutely nothing to do with this question and only further shows how you have completely failed to understand the question. Will be re-opening my admin question Snowlocust (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opening response I told you this is not an admin issue. If you misuse the help template, I will have to extend your block for talk page disruption. Further disruption could jeopardize your ability to edit this page. To answer one of your questions, you may (after your block expires) post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I would advise against that course of action based on my explanation above. However, you are not prohibited from posting there. Tiderolls 01:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see that you are never going to understand the question and properly answer me. The other admin I am currently talking to (Elen of the Roads), however, understands the question and is giving me helpful answers, so - no offense intended - I will simply continue discussing this with him. Thanks for your time and efforts, however. Snowlocust (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as you get the help you seek the source is not important. Tiderolls 01:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Since Elen and I are basically saying the same thing.

"Elen and I are basically saying the same thing." Um, I completely disagree, but I guess it isn't worth arguing about Snowlocust (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a mistake with a warning template

• To confirm, you were blocked because of the number of reverts. You also have a problem adding information that is not verifiable with reliable sources, because you said yourself that some of what you initially wanted to include was based on extrapolating from the information you had to make an assumption. That's a no for this project. There are a lot of warning templates - see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, it's quite easy to get not quite the right one. I think User:John probably intended to add {{Uw-biog2}} to your userpage, this says

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.

As you see, no talk of defamation, but it does suggest that the information might be controversial - which I think we can all agree it is. If you have a source that says "Foo respects Islamic customs" you cannot extrapolate from that to "Foo is a Muslim". For that, you need a reliable source documenting Foo saying that he is a Muslim. This applies in Wikipedia to all religions and all ethnic groupings, because the area is frequently controversial. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well there's our problem. He clearly didn't "make a mistake" and include the wrong one, he clearly consciously believes that "islamic beliefs" are to be equated with "defamation", which is bigotry Snowlocust (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And you know this because....? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hence the whole point of asking the question. I am asking for experienced help into looking into this rather blatant bigotry Snowlocust (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated, but I've also just noticed that regarding the "edit war" which I was blocked for, another anonymous user has came in and has contributed virtually the exact same stuff that I did. No doubt the anti-Islamic brigade will delete his contributions, also. Snowlocust (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK first off, I don't believe there is any blatant bigotry. You add those templates using the code or an automated tool. I don't believe John ever figured out that it was the warning template that had got you going. Like me, he probably assumed it was something said to you on the talkpage of the article. So you need to cool your heels on that one, or you'll end up with another block for personal attacks.

Second off, there is (or should be) no problem adding sourced info to the article about Galloway's relationship with Islam, his Asian constituents, promoting the vote among Asian women, respecting Ramadan or whatever. It is all valid in respect of his byelection win, where he won against an Asian Labour candidate who had the backing of the community elders. I have not seen a source where he says he considers himself a Muslim, but if you have one, you should discuss it on the talkpage of the article. If he says he's a Muslim (or a Catholic, Bahai or Odinist) then that can go in the article, but he has to say it himself. That's the rule on Wikipedia.

Third off, don't edit war. If someone reverts you, discuss it on the talk page, don't keep trying to force the edit into the article. If you can't agree, use dispute resolution. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so just to clarify, you believe that the posting of the defamatory template was not an act of bigotry but a simple mistake? Is there any way of proving whether it was or wasn't a mistake? If not, then I guess there is nothing more than can be said on the matter.. Snowlocust (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Other than asking him, you could read his talk page - he keeps all his archives - and check his editing contributions to see if he comes over as a bigot generally. Most admins cross each other's paths regularly, and it has never struck me that he has an anti-islamic stance. I can understand why you went up in the air - it is certainly not defamatory to suggest someone is a Muslim - but I do think this was not what he was meaning to say. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, I guess that answers it then. Thanks a lot for your time. I'll probably ask him about it when I'm unblocked..! Snowlocust (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Stay cool, and hopefully it will all work out. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• On reflection, Elen is right and I should have used the {{Uw-biog2}} template rather than the defamation one. You are right, accusing a living public figure of being a Muslim when they have never stated such is not defamation. It is, however, extremely unwise and I was trying to warn you to stop before you were blocked. Next time maybe you could take notice when an experienced editor tells you your edits are out of line, rather than cooking up a conspiracy theory. Your edits were bad, for the reasons explained here and at Talk:George Galloway and you must not make edits like that when your block expires. On living people we need to be exceptionally careful with sourcing. A YouTube video does not come close to the standard of sourcing we would need for this claim. I am sorry you have had a rough start here and I would encourage you to stick around, maybe editing in less controversial areas until you get the hang of how we do business here. --John (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

'Islamophobia'

A point you may have missed, since you were blocked about the time I posted it on the Galloway article talk page: your claims of 'Islamophobia' as being the motivation for people objecting to your edits is somewhat ironic, given the blatant Islamophobia of the person who posted the YouTube video - one 'Couchtripperthetit' - I suggest you look a some of his remarks on the comments section of the YouTube page... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it is a little ironic. I guess Islamophobes are everywhere. Snowlocust (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you might do better if you avoided trying to guess who was an Islamophobe, and instead considered the evidence. The evidence seems to suggest that you tried to use a dubiously-edited (and possibly dubbed, and almost certainly copyright-violating) video posted on YouTube by someone who is self-evidently Islamophobic as a source for Wikipedia article content. Wikipedia would never use such material as a source, regardless of who posted it, in any case. Your assertions that Islamophobia was behind the objections to your edits only made your arguments look more questionable. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia in future, I'd suggest that you read up on our policy on reliable sourcing, and then ask yourself whether you might do better in future by finding better sources, rather than making personal attacks on those who disagree with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a new Wikipedian. I am pretty angry at the so-called "neutrality" of one article. Please read further

George Galloway practices many Islamic beliefs and has consciously included himself as part of the "Muslim world". Facts:

• Galloway refuses to lie during Ramadhan and considers doing so a "very wrong thing to do"
• Always accompanies saying the name of the Prophet Muhammed with the traditional "peace be upon him"
• Believes the prophet Muhammed "ascended to heaven" from the Al-Aqsa mosque.
• Galloway does not drink nor gamble (Not strictly Islamic per se, but a requirement of being Muslim)
• When asked what his religion was, Galloway replied in his usual stance of dodging the question, but this time added "there is only one God, and no God but God", which is the fundamental statement of Islam
• Galloway classes Muslims as his "brothers and sisters"
• Galloway makes heavily implied statements such as "A Muslim is somebody who is not afraid of earthly power but who fears only the Judgment Day. I’m ready for that, I’m working for that and it’s the only thing I fear"
• Galloway commonly makes references to Islamic concepts, for example "We stand for justice and haqq [the Islamic concept of truth and righteousness]"
• Another example of a statement on his radio show is "The holy month of Ramadan is upon us, we will all be fasting for a longer day than normal"
• Galloway has married 3 Muslim women in Muslim ceremonies. If he was actually Roman Catholic this would be prohibited as Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men.

Source: Newspaper articles, his radio show, his TV show (I am not sure what the YT policy is on getting citations from the man's own shows - do they need to be uploaded to the internet?)

Here are examples of the TV shows/Radio shows that have been broadcast. Unfortunately these videos are also made by Islamophobes and are obviously not reliable sources, I am purely stating them as examples of the things he has said on his shows. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCje6Ef_lA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGkq6oO4u50

So, George Galloway. Muslims know he is Muslim. Anyone with a SHRED of religious knowledge, from the evidence, considers him a Muslim. No, I am not saying Wikipedia should state "He is a Muslim". But the fact that, on this so called "neutral" website, that not a single WORD is given to his obvious Islamic practice and beliefs, I find disgusting and extremely Islamophobic. By Islamic definitions he is a Muslim, as he believes "There is no God but God" and he believes" Muhammed rose to the heavens from Al Aqsa and returned with the revelation of the Quran", statements which obviously make him a Muslim by both Islamic and non-Islamic definitions. To say he is a "Roman Catholic", end of story, is simply WRONG. Roman Catholics do not "refuse to lie on Ramadan", Roman Catholics do not believe "Muhammed ascended to heaven from the Al-Aqsa mosque", Roman Catholics do not "Fast on Ramadan", and so on. This is ignorant at best, or a lie at worst. On such a so-called "neutral" encyclopaedia I find it disgraceful that this has been allowed to occur for so long, and I seriously question the "neutrality" of any editors who have simply skipped over evidence/mentioning of these glaring Islamic beliefs/practices and haven't even thought to mention them once.

Here is what it comes down to: The article is clearly displaying false information, placed there by Islamophobes/people with anti-Islamic agendas, and yet nobody seems to care. You cannot display something so obviously untrue as fact. Someone else also tried editing it last night (see 86.161.253.195 at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&action=history), but even though it was verified truth it was reverted by someone with an obvious anti-Islamic agenda.

My question to experienced Wikipedians: Can you read over the above, and tell me your thoughts? I'm furious at this. How would I go about finding sources for these - I have seen them on TV, but am unsure of whether this is good enough to cite? Finally, how do I stop people who (in my opinion) have anti-Islamic/Islamophobic agendas from editing/reverting any additions to George's article about his Islamic beliefs/practices? I am not the only person

Snowlocust (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why is it so important to you to state that a living person is an adherent to a particular belief system when the subject has made no such public affiliation? --John (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"a living person is an adherent" WRONG as I wrote above "No, I am not saying Wikipedia should state "He is a Muslim"". John, no offense intended, but in my opinion you do NOT hold a neutral opinion on this topic. I won't say much more out of fear of wikipedia's respect rules, but as said, I personally believe you have an anti-Islamic agenda (just my own opinion, not meaning to cause offense). Snowlocust (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• You are not going to get any further by ranting and personally attacking everyone around you. All that will happen is another block. Explain to me here what edits you want to make to the article, and what sources you want to use to support those edits, bearing in mind WP:BLP which I hope you have taken the time to read. "Everyone knows" and "it has been widely reported" do not count as sources. Point to a newspaper article, item on one of the news channel, item on Galloway's own website, his own blog, or posted by him on his facebook page (given that he used Facebook a lot in his campaign, I'm sure he said stuff on it). It's not anti-Islamic whatever that is keeping the info you want to add out of the article, so far it is your failure to meet the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In order to do part of this you will need to provide me with help, i.e. my question above. I am a huge fan of Galloway and some of the things I listed above are things he has said on TV shows, in public speeches, or his radio show. How would I go about using these as references? Do they have to be uploaded to the internet, or can I list the episode/time in which it was stated as a citation? Snowlocust (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I also find it incredibly ironic that one of the first lines in the BLP article is "We must get the article right." and this rule is broken so badly on the George Galloway biography concerning him being Roman Catholic. Clearly the rules are very "flexible" when it comes to wikipedia's hidden anti-islamic agenda Snowlocust (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Any more of that, and you will find your block extended for another 24 hours, to prevent disruption. Please read WP:AGF - if you cannot assume good faith of other editors, your career editing here will be very short. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you answer the question? Snowlocust (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Back to sources. Read those two links WP:V and WP:RS. Wikipedia relies on published secondary sources. "I saw it on tv" is not verifiable; "he said it on the 9 o'clock news on 27.11.2010" is better, but will be a problem if a copy of the broadcast is not available should anyone wish to check; "here is the video on the BBC website" is excellent. "The Telegraph reported it on 28.11.2010" is fine even if you can't find an online version - The Telegraph archive is available in public libraries.

• Wikipedia will not accept copyright material in violation of copyright. That includes linking to material which is a copyright violation. So you could not upload a news programme you happen to have recorded, and use that as a source.

• As to how to format references, WP:CITE has advice, although new editors can find it difficult. Do ask further if you need help on formatting references once you have found them.

• The information on Galloway being a Catholic should be sourced, and you should be able to see the citation in the article. It may be from years ago. In which case, you can discuss on the talk page how these sources support the view that he has become more Islamic-friendly, which should be included in the article, juxtaposing them with his early Catholicism (eg Galloway was brought up a Roman Catholic (cite) but three of his wives have been Muslims (cite) and in recent times he has said..... (cite, cite).)Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that's extremely helpful. So I am looking to strongly oppose the notion that George Galloway is a Roman Catholic. Anyone concerned with the TRUTH can see this is a falsehood on wikipedia (you only have to look at the above evidence, whether it is copyrighted or not does not affect its truthfulness). The problem is that even though I provide correct citations, editors still revert my edits. For example, I wish to add these three points:

• Galloway classes Muslims as his "brothers and sisters"
• Galloway makes heavily implied statements such as "A Muslim is somebody who is not afraid of earthly power but who fears only the Judgment Day. I’m ready for that, I’m working for that and it’s the only thing I fear"
• Galloway commonly makes references to Islamic concepts, for example "We stand for justice and haqq [the Islamic concept of truth and righteousness]"

All 3 of these are taken from the recent article here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9176195/A-runaway-victory-for-George-Galloway-and-all-praise-to-Allah.html . So there should be no problem adding these, and disputing his religion, correct?

However I need advice concerning the TV shows. For example, George Galloway stated on his Press TV show "The Real Deal" that he "doesn't lie on Ramadan" and that he believes "lying on Ramadan is a very wrong thing to do". This can be seen here, at the 20 second mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCje6Ef_lA However this video is probably in breach of copyright, and so is unusable, correct? I know which episode of the Real Deal he said it, and at which time he said it, but I cannot find it online. So - as per your advice above - could I add the above statement to his article, and reference it by saying "Stated at 39:12 on his talk show The Real Deal on 18th Jan 2009"? Snowlocust (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent source, and The Telegraph refers to content on Galloway's own website - you can use anything on that as a source for what yer man says as well. I don't think it's worth labouring the 'lying on Ramadan thing' if you can't immediately find a source - you have excellent material here. You could also check for anything on the Bradford Telegraph and Argus website http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/ Do not set out to prove by deduction that he must be a Muslim, but you can quote his direct words. I would say, as you are a new editor, go to the talkpage first. Show your sources. Ask how this material should be incorporated, as it is current and not undue, since he has been saying it all over the place. Do not start your discussion by ranting about Islamophobia. Do assume good faith of other editors. If you get any problems, discuss first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Polite request

Would you mind if we agreed first in article talk about what we say about Galloway's religion? I would rather say nothing than get into tabloid speculation about it. Thanks for your understanding. --John (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

See talk article for my view on this matter.. Snowlocust (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)