Talk:Charlie Wolf

Charlie's creationist viewpoint

I have re-introduced Charlie's views regarding evolution, and his literal interpretation of the Bible. He promoted these views at some length on TalkSport radio, on Saturday night of 8 October 2005. I think they are relevant, both on account of their unusualness, and also with a view to making sense of his take on various issues. Possibly they don't belong specifically under political views. 86.143.64.123 20:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listing political views?

An encyclopedia entry should state facts, and restrain from conjecture. Listing someones supposed political views relies on someones personal interpretation of what he has said, and depeneds on those views remaining unchanged. Quoting things he actually said may be more desirable than putting words into his mouth. Claiming he is a "notorius right wing Zionist" seems less than impartial as well. This entry reads like it has been written by someone who hates Charlie Wolf. Even if the authors do hate him, in an impartial piece, that should not be evident. McGonicle 01:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very disturbing borderline anti-semitism on this page

It is sad that so many editors can edit a page over 9 months and leave in the phrase "notorious right-wing Zionist" and "controversial PNAC" etc. Notorious to whom? Controversial to whom? To conspiracy nuts, anti-Semites and anti-Zionists of all stripes - that's who!!!!

9 months that was up there. Very sad. Shame and disgrace. jucifer 21:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw this entry yesterday when it was suggested as a good model for entrys on an individual. I was pretty shocked, it is terrible. My main concern is that it is not impartial. Listing somebody else's interpretations of an individual's political outlook is clearly not impartial, especially the way it has been done here. McGonicle 22:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well i went in with my scithe and hacked great lumps out of it. I totally rewrote the 'Political Views' section. I can not recall Wolf ever refering to himself as being a Zionist, so I've removed all references to that as well. I tweaked the Cork Talks Back part a bit, but as I am not familar with the show, I have really only rewrote the odd line for ease of use. These edits have been done entirely in the interest of impartiality, and to remove assertions which are not verifiable. There is no conjecture in an encyclopedia! McGonicle 22:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia McGonicle! While I agree that the previous article was terrible, I feel the pendulum may have swung the other way now. It is surely not POV to accurately describe someone else’s POV, but now we are told that “Wolf has had strong debates ... on subjects such as hunting, ... Darwinism and the restoration of the death penalty”, without a clear indication of where he stands on these issues (though I think we can guess).

I feel we need to be told that both the style and content of his delivery is exceptional to the UK radio network, being largely dominated as it is by the (supposedly) impartial BBC. There is no getting away from the fact that the views he expresses are extreme. To hear, for instance, a presenter declare that God created the world a few thousand years ago just like it says in the Bible, is not normal for the UK network—I’ve certainly never heard anything like it.

You make an interesting point about verification. You can verify what someone says on the radio by trawling through the archives, but it’s not an option open to most people. Does this mean we can never report what he said, even though we all know that he said it? Maybe next time he gets going I’ll start recording! But in any event, I would say that an article on Wolf simply has to include the word “Moonbat”.

Thanks again for your intervention, which I trust will have prevented things getting completely out of hand. — Laurence Boyce 13:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]