Talk:Charlie Wolf/Archive 1

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)

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)

I have noted the edits made by Adrian Lamo to the "politics" section on the reverted version of the page, but they are still clearly not put in any context, and really wide open to range of interperation. I think such a weighty subject at least deserves a proper sentence structure, such as that afforded by a paragraph. McGonicle 21:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

People like you give Jews a bad name with your paranoid religious ramblings. Some of the most vociferous critics of Zionism (and there is a lot to criticise!) also happen to be of Jewish descent. Wolf is a controversial figure even among his TalkSport colleagues. TalkSport is a British radio station so I suggest you leave it to us Brits to decide, given that we have to endure his offensive foreign propaganda on a weekly basis. BTW, extensive archives of Wolf's shows are available on his website, so you have nowhere to hide on that point. 195.92.67.69 17:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

195.95.67.69 is clearly a making a racist and very un-wiki point here. First of all, he or she is assuming that Juicifer is Jewish. Secondly he or she is asserting that the Juicifer has no right to contribute to the wiki as he or she is American (both un-wiki and racist). Thirdly he or she is assuming that Juicifer is American. And last of all, he or she claims that it is a British issue as Wolf broadcasts on a British radio station. Yet he or she is ignoring the fact that the station broadcasts on the internet and via digital satelitte, which makes the Wolf's show availible all over Europe and the Rest of the World. I rest my case. McGonicle 17:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You insult our intelligence with this pathetic "neutralist" ambush by you and your friends, and you insult us further with your paranoid name-calling. I am not a racist - I have many Left-wing Jewish friends who share my views about your kind. Yes, Charlie Wolf is notorious on this side of the Atlantic and is slammed regularly even by his Jewish colleagues on the station. Clearly, Juicifer, like a typical arrogant American rightist, is not well-informed about affairs over here. America is made up of many races so how can I be racist in criticising Americans - again more paranoia and victimhood (BTW, Juicifer is an American because she mentions it on her user page). 195.92.67.69 00:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia entry has to be impartial. Even if you dispise Wolf, it should not be evident in the entry. Calling a fellow wiki a "arrogant American right" shows a basic lack of respect for them, and tells more about yourself. It does not matter if the contributor is a raving Trotskyist, or a shaven headed swasticka toting Nazi, If their contribution is impartial well writen and based in fact then it should be acceptable. If you were not being racist, then you were clearly being something-ist, maybe nation-ist. Just becasue she is in America she can not contribute? Sorry pal, anybody can contribute. Again, you have ignored that the radio program is availible in America via the internet. As far as I am aware, the two other most prominent Jewish presenters on Talksport, Andy Jacobs and Ian Abrahams have never slammed him on air. Anyway, your just a bunch of numbers in Leeds. McGonicle 00:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting how (according to their own user pages!) Juicifer and Laurence Boyce both have reactionary tendencies. Your agenda is clear and you are kidding nobody. Juicifer is not a regular listener as she would know how unpopular Wolf is, particularly with anti-hunting colleagues James Whale, Mark Keen and Mike Mendoza (who also happens to be Jewish, BTW!). Being a critic of the American Establishment does not make someone "nation-ist". And, FYI, I reside in southern England, "pal"! 195.92.67.70 01:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, am I reactionary? I don't think I want to be. Please could you a) get an account, b) get polite, c) rejoin the debate at some later point. — Laurence Boyce 15:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You are an admirer of Sam Harris, a myopic American atheist who regards Islam as a threat to world peace. 195.92.67.72 00:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

James Whale and Mark Keen are not Jewish. You are challenging both posters' right to discuss an article based on their political outlook, their religon and nationalility. You have pigeon holed their beliefs based on your preconceived notions. It is clearly core to the wikipedia that you can post no matter your political and religous outlook or where in the world you hail from. You seem convinced that neither has even heard the programme or has any knowledge of Wolf, without any basis. You make countless assumptions about the individuals and assert them as truth, which is probably why your contributions to the article are so poor and biased. Now if you really want to continue this pointless argument, if it really bothers you that much, why do you not spend 30 seconds signing up to get a proper account? McGonicle 11:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

James Whale and Mark Keen are not Jewish, thank you for reminding me. Preconceived notions? I suggest you read Juicifer's pathetic little rant, down below. 195.92.67.72

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)

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)

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)

Laurence, as I said, I hacked great lumps out of it. I just made an effort to sanitise it, and I expected that I would take out some things that may be considered acceptable. I do not listen to Wolf very often, and when i do it is usually for the first hour of the show. So I just tried to make an effort to make it fall within the wiki standards. I still think any attempt to illustrated anybody's poltical viewpoints or beliefs should be done with great skill and totally impartially. Listing political views in lazy and unacceptable, not to mention misleading. I resisted making entries to the Wikipedia for a couple of years, but seeing some of the wild stuff that is written in some entries, I've started to feel compelled to intervene.

I would also strongly disagree that Wolf is unique on UK radio in exhibiting creationist beliefs. You will find plenty of such people on Radio 4 and the Christian Radio networks and shows that are dotted around the media. I think simply saying "he has creationist beliefs" bolted onto a lot of stuff about Zionism and so on is misleading. Maybe a paragraph along the lines of "In his conversations with both guests and listeners, he has exhibited a strong belief in creationism and support for the creation of a Jewish state". At least that is a little less arbitary than simply dictating what his views are to the world. The previous edit appeared to me to be someone who hates Charlie Wolf simply listing the reasons they hated him, telling more about them than him. McGonicle 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair point—well you've made a good start. I guess if you can actually manage a whole hour of the show then you're more qualified than most to edit the article :-) But there's no way you would hear a presenter talk like Wolf on BBC Radio 4; a contributing guest, maybe. — Laurence Boyce 20:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User 195.95.67.69: People like you give Jews a bad name with your paranoid religious ramblings?

User 195.95.67.69 is a bigot and a racist. Right, so what you are saying is that Jews have a bad name. Really, according to whom? Well, according to you and many other racists. I am loathe to generalize, but as someone who has been studying the British psyche for a few years now your thought processes are typical of what are often termed little Engenders - you hate America because it has usurped your place in the world. Americans are richer than you, better looking than you, have higher IQs than you, drive better cars than you, have more fun than you, and are more powerful than you. All your contemporary culture is lead by Hollywood (Jews..argggh), and your leaders are humbled before the US Presidency. So you are jealous, which is why you hate them. It is why you hate me and it is why you hate Jews. Because you are small minded, petty and jealous. Jealous of your neighbours, of your friends and of your more successful siblings. It permeates your very being and drives your every thought. That is who you are, and that is why you hate Americans, Jews and anyone else who has more money than you. Your moral indignation at American "arrogance" and "colonialism" is, to quote Vittorio de Sica after H G Wells, "2% moral, 48% indignation, and 50% envy."

...Not all Jews mind, Oh no! You are not an anti-semite! You have Jewish friends! Like Michael Jackson! Like Hermann Goering! Like David Duke!

"I have many Left-wing Jewish friends who share my views about your kind." MY KIND! Oh go to hell you sad little trot.

"Juicifer, like a typical arrogant American rightist, is not well-informed about affairs over here" - I live here you vile fool. How dare you tell me that I can't edit this article fairly because I am a libertarian Jew! How dare you use material that I posted about myself against me in this grotesque fashion, especially when you deliberately refuse to sign in and use a proxy IP so you can never get banned for your frequent vandalism. You should be a lot more careful. Under the UK's draconian laws you are not as anonymous as you think you are. Go back to your hole. jucifer 18:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You are flailing around like a spoiled child, and I find it hard to remember reading such a tissue of lies and misrepresentations. You have dispelled any remaining illusions about your "neutrality". Clearly, I am the most neutral person around here. What a pathetic and embarrassing spectacle. 195.92.67.72 00:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You vile racist trot. "Tissue of lies and misrepresentation? Hahaha. I was quoting you! I never engage in personal attacks, but for you I make a special case. You should also get a life, since you were apparently singing in the new year in you underwear while typing nonsence into wikipedia. Maybe if you had more fun in your life you wouldn't be so unpleasant. jucifer 15:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You repeatedly accuse me of anti-Semitism and of being a "vile trot" (Yes, I am a great admirer of Leon Trotsky) yet you appear to have neglected one vital fact - Trotsky was a Jew. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention Karl Marx, the quarter-Jewish Vladimir Lenin, and the many Jewish Bolsheviks and other Jewish communists around the world! BTW, I do have a life, thank you very much, and, sorry to disappoint, but I never walk around the house only in underwear. 195.92.67.72 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry my mistake. Yes I apologize you are not an racist bigot loser trot then. Whatever you say dude. jucifer 02:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A "racist bigot loser trot", now I've heard everything. Why would an anti-Semite be attracted to the ideology of a Jewish communist? Communism is an internationalist, unequivocally anti-racist ideology. 195.92.67.77 00:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You are attracted to Marxist thought sir, because as I pointed out above you are defined by jealousy. That is why you hate America, it is why you are a racist, it is why you are a bigot. It is also why you are trot. What else is Marxism other than jealousy writ large - the monstrous extension or the eternal child's cry "mummy! he has got more candy than me! its not fair!" ? That are are willing to associate yourself, even vicariously, with a movement that has lead to the deaths of 70-100 million people, and has failed dismally wherever it has been tried can only be due to some dramatic damage in your psyche.172.203.30.41 02:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh by the way, a friend of mine thinks black people are all evil. But she really likes hip-hop, so she can't be a racist can she? I mean "why would a racist like the music of black men? Are you this thick that this needs to be spelt out for you?

Sir, I happen to like Americans - the normal ones anyway (LOL!). As a humanist and internationalist, I see beauty in all peoples. Jealousy???? I am jealous of no one and certainly not of you, as you clearly have a less than adequate knowledge of Soviet politics. Trotsky and his allies were among those 70-100 million deaths at the hands of the illiterate thug Stalin (who I would have gladly assassinated!) and his Red-Brown ilk. 195.92.67.74 18:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dont call me Sir you racist sexist cretin. You write: "Communism is an internationalist, unequivocally anti-racist ideology." - communist killed 70-100m people and you associate yourself with that movement. You yourself dont seem to have grasped the defference. This is no doubt because your atraction to marxism is post is a mere consequence of your jealousy and immaturity. jucifer 13:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

So I'm "sexist" now!!! Your hysterical and outlandish slurs against me prove your desperation here. You deserve to be mocked (you called me "Sir" in a similarly condescending manner!). I do not need to repeat myself on the Stalin vs. Trotsky issue. Trotsky was a great intellectual and a true communist who died at the hands of a power-mad tyrant, and I would have died with him. To judge an entire ideology by the criminal and opportunistic actions of one ill-educated, megalomaniac politician is pure idiocy. 195.92.67.67 17:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I suppose communism was a great success everywhere else it was tried. It lead to heaven on earth in Cambodia, in Cuba, in China, in Burma, in Laos, in Ghana, in Poland, in Hungary in..... In all these countries democracy was paramount, the workers were free, and everyone had plenty. And nobody was massacred! It is indeed a great ideology! Look how well it works! Stalin was a bad'un, but all the rest - great men! Oh, if only we could go back to the days when Marxism wasn't a joke. jucifer 21:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad examples. All followed the undemocratic, Stalinist, isolationist, 'bureaucratic socialist' model. Trotskyists and other democratic international socialists were imprisoned or executed in these countries, I too would have been gaoled or shot. Anyway, I have friends in Cuba who are quite confident it will join the democratic path without surrendering to US economic orthodoxies, i.e. the strategy adopted by Latin American socialist allies Venezuela and Bolivia, and shortly Mexico, etc. 195.92.67.77 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 195.92.67.***

195.92.67.***, if you are going to continue to make so many terrible and completely biased edits, or more accurately reversions where you pretend to have "tidied things up", you could at the very least sign up and get a proper account. This article was flagged up as being in a bad state, and it was so while it was in the version that you keep on reverting to. The article will simply not work in that form. It is completely biased, using phrases with loaded meanings and makes wild assumptions which have no basis in fact. It also talks about things of competely no consequence for anyone, that are purely there for somebody's vainity, to preserve their abilty to phone up a radio station and say something that requires limited intelligence. You are at liberty to make edits freely, of course, but I do not see how restoring a link to a website that says a certain town "is sh*t" is a vitally important link to unbiased resource related to Charlie Wolf. I will treat any further reversions to that terrible version of the document as vandalous McGonicle 01:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are you to judge what is 'terrible and biased'? You have no authority to lecture anyone. I am protecting a well-written, accurate and unbiased assessment of Wolf's controversial style and political views. You, on the other hand, want a sanitised, insipid version of the truth. 195.92.67.67 17:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes who am I to judge the author of such great contributions as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feces&diff=29378970&oldid=29378890 , or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feces&diff=29379100&oldid=29378970 , wit at it's finest, I'm sure you'll agree. And who could forget that touching, heart moving description of how best to deal with the mentally ill at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mental_illness&diff=32091842&oldid=31910271 . I particularly like one of your smaller edits, on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Da_Vinci_Code&diff=33856893&oldid=33771411 which displays your complete mastery of the concept of impartiallity. Some would say you were touched with genius. They may ask why someone blessed with such obvious great writing talent would choose not to sign up for a proper account, but I would say it's probably not their choice... Now come on Chris, please try to retain some impartiallity. I know its exciting being in the sixth form and everything, and hey, I enjoyed studying the Russian Revolution when I was at school as well, but you don't know it all kiddiewinks. Tell me old muckers Mr Moore-Bridger, he owes me a round... McGonicle 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have never even visited these articles. The IP address 195.92.67.67 is that of a shared proxy server. Yet another slur on my character. Please apologise.195.92.67.77 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha ,ha, apologise, or what? You'll sue me for libelling an ip? Ha ha ha ha! If you don't want such things levelled against you, then I encourage you to sign up for a proper account. The ip's of the articles refered to above have all be used to post on this entry. I will be giving your Headmaster a ring in the morning anyway, just in case I got it right, Chris. Becasue if you've been using a proxy server to get around your schools banned list, I'm sure he'll be interested. He will probably love that stuff about "you give Jews a bad name". Of course, I could have got it all wrong. In that case, I'll risk the defamation suit. Now, get back to your dorm! McGonicle 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You are an obsessive lunatic and a fool. Go and complain to Energis UK if you want. Like it or not, I am here to defend freedom of expression.195.92.67.77 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm a lunatic and a fool am I? That sounds a bit libelous. Hang on, wait a minute, it can't be becasue you wrote it, so it can't be libelous, just like that Nancy Ann Luft stuff can't be libelous, because somebody published that on the internet, you called it "hatemail", a phrase which has various connatations and then wrote it on another website. Good thinking! You also made some pretty off colour comments on here regarding the "kinds" of Jewish people. Classy. I'm not questioning your right to amend work on here, I say fire away do it all you like. But I'm just making it clear tjhat I will keep reverting it, and it will be ever thus. And just in case I was a lunatic, I would take much solace in the information found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mental_illness&diff=32091842&oldid=31910271 . i do not see to many people supporting you on here, unless you count you various ip's as different people. I'm not a left winger, or right winger, or centre or anything, so I'd like to know how you'd try to write me off as being some political nutter. Enjoy your editing!!! I recommend you get an acoount, It doesn't take long!!! McGonicle 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to spend the rest of your days censoring Wikipedia entries, you are a pretty sad little creature indeed. I happen to know a lot more about you than you realise. 195.92.67.70 18:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, maybe you will learn something. If you know that much, could you tell me where I left my glasses this morning, becasue I'm having to squint to read your inciteful contributions today. Everyone is free to edit the wikipedia as much as they like, at no point have I said anything to the contrary. I encourage you to continue making contributions, but I will continue to revert ammendments or reversions I feel are poor and unsatisfactory. McGonicle 21:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What a self-important fool you are. You behave like you own Wikipedia. You have no authority here and you are wasting your time. 195.92.67.71 23:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you have missed the basic premise of Wikipedia. Anybody can edit it, and at any time. I don't see how my editing an article can be acting as if I own it. I am repeatly asking you to continue making your contributions, but in turn the contributions you make are fundementally flawed. It is clearly not acceptable to link to a web page that describes a town as "sh*t" in its title. There is no encyclopedia you would find that in. I would also ask for my money back on the tome that found the space to print the names of important individuals such as "Hot tub Jen" and "Alan the Dub". That information is completely meaningless and has no place in an encyclopeida. Your reference to Nancy Ann Luft is open to libel from the named individual. Charlie Wolf may have published the letters on his website, but to describe it on Wikipedia as hatemail is clearly contentious, and possible grounds to libel. There is also no merit in publishing snippets of crank calls, unless of course you feel the fact that somebody called his show and said “Charlie boy, you are a tool” gives us some informative incite into the person that is Charlie Wolf. I would strongly argue that the purpose of entering such stuff is to feed the ego of whoever made the call. The arbitary listing of Charlie Wolf's supposed points of view is very lazy and shows a basic lack of any attempt to justify the accusations made. And that is what them come across as, accusations of a severely biased and unimpartial person who clearly hates Charlie Wolf. When I rewrote the paragraph I tried to includ some of the points made there, but in an impartial and unbiased manor. It does not come across as someone who hates the man, which is probably why you have come to the conclusion that I am some sort of devout fan. The fact is I'm not a great fan of him myself, but I wrote in such a factual and unbiased manor, you became convinced I was, becasue you have become so blinkered you do not think it is possible to write in an unbiased style on the man. If you had attempted to actually write a paragrpah it may have been easier for you to defend. Your previous posts in this discusion clearly indicate you have some sort of hatred for a certain "kind" of Jewish people. If i were to list your points of view mimicking style you did of Charlie Wolf, it would read: "Rampant Left Wing Communist, Racist, Paranoid deranged, Pro-Islam fanatic, Wildly and irrationally anti Americana..."

and so on. If I were to write it, I would say "this person has broadly alligned themselves to a Communist point of view, but more in the Menshavik tradition, having expressed a strong dislike of the dictatorial nature of many states modelled on the Stalinist example..." and so on. But that relies on being articulate and actually trying to write something that has structure, and is descriptive, rather than a stream of disjointed accusations, with no context of reasoning or attempts of justification. And my way comes across as impartial, even though I have an increasing dislike of you. Do you see? Now, if you do reply to this message, could you please at some point during it, please explain why, if you feel so strongly about contributing to the Wikipedia, to the point where we have this huge discussion, you will not take the time to sign up and get a proper account? I am enjoying the discussion, but I find it baffling. McGonicle 11:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating with an autistic obsessive. You are a tedious bore and a waste of time. My colleagues and I will continue to undo your vandalous censorship indefinitely. 195.92.67.67 18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so apart from the mentally ill and and a certain "kind" of Jews, you've go it in for the autistic now as well have you? What and enlightened person you are. And you are defending freedom of speech are you? That must be why you keep telling me to stop making edits and I from the begining have asked you to continue making them. That must be why you told someone in this discussion that they had no place making edits here, becasue they were American and knew nothing about it. Tghat must be why you attempted to challenge people's right to contribution, based on their politcal and religious outlook. Yes, it all adds up. I suspect you do not want to try and engage me in discussion because you are limited in that department. While I have been arguing my point, you have been attempting to shower me with insults. While I have been attempting to justify my actions with logic and reason, you have spouted off a torrent of flannel juice and gibberish. And by the way, after getting so fired up about all of this, did you ever get fired up enough to sign up for an account? I noticed you dodged that question yet again. Have you ever thought of going into politics? McGonicle 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This is brilliant keeps it up lads

Maybe some of the contributors to this page would like to add their pearls of wisdom to Mike Dickins Page