Talk:Charlie Wolf

message: * Talk:Charlie Wolf/Archive1 (?? - 20:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello folk. I have not abandoned this article, I am just not prepared to continue a pointless edit war. I have refered this entry and the issues therein to the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, and will await their response before I make any further edits. McGonicle 17:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have refered this article and the disagreements with 195.92.67.*** to the Mediation Cabal 

message: Hi, I'm your friendly cabal mediator, here to try and achieve consensus, resulting in a better quality article :) - FrancisTyers 20:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for your input, I think that the first thing is to cite this stuff. After it is cited it can be NPOV'd There is a tutorial at Wikipedia:Footnotes. If it isn't cited, it can be removed to the talk page pending verification (see: WP:CITE). I think it is worth giving the other user a few days to respond. Did you read the Knocknaheeny link? It says nice things about the place too. I actually started the Knocknaheeny article after reading it. - FrancisTyers 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Many thanks for your time and interest in mediating this subject. I am very interested in the concept of wikipedia, and my original determination to refine this article was primarily motivated by the fact that there were definate issues for legal concern. In the last few days, one of Wolf's fellow presenters, James Whale, became quite vocal about  hsi wikipedia entry (which at that time seemed quite uncontroversial) and that he would start legal proceedings if he felt there were grounds for it. In the wikipedia, not only is there the immediate article which remains published, but as all former articles are archived, these are in effect published too, and potentially of legal concern. This kind of informal mediation is a good first step in establishing the correct way in conducting debate in an entry such as this where the etiquette had been neglected. If the anonymous poster was not prepared to take part in the debate, then their contributions, whether worthy or not are subject to being altered or removed. I will wait for a short while longer for a response, and failingthat, I will rewrite again, moving all debated elements to discussion. McGonicle 20:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any legal doubts, revisions can be removed. I think there has to be a very strong case for this though. From WP:LEGAL, Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia.. I would agree with your final point, but I would go further in saying that as this is a Wiki, their contributions may be altered, moved, played around with to your hearts content :) People can't own pages (WP:OWN).- FrancisTyers 11:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Cheers man, thank you very much for your input :) McGonicle 12:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: #The entry contains the sentence "Charlie is Jewish and a persistent Right-wing Zionist". This is presented in an arbitary fashion as fact, without any justification or clarification in fact. You may come away from listening to a Wolf broadcast with that impression, but it is not presented with NPOV, or with any basis in facts or statements. The poster 195.92.67.*** also made a comment in discussion indicating pre-conceived notions over a certain "kind" of Jewish person, which also raises concerns over an implied negative close association of being Jewish and having Right Wing political views and being a Zionist.
#Contains the sentence "According to Charlie, a conservative must support the Iraq war." which is a sweeping statement and is not justified by the author. The sentence in itself is flawed as it is not NPOV. I would suggest "Wolf has indicated on his programme that he perceives there to be a broad alignment between conservate poltics and support for the war in Iraq". But I have never heard or seen any evidence to that effect, so the sentence appears to be entirely conjecture and opinion, and thus not NPOV.
#The section "Charlie's Political Views" lists interpretations of Wolf's poltical and social views in an arbitary fashion, without any attempt for justification or any references at all. The section would be improved by rewriting the section into a well structured paragraph. The section does not hold a NPOV. There may be basis in some of the lsited claims, but they are presented in a non-NPOV form.
#The statement "Defender of Israel" is too vague to be of any informative value, and raises concerns highlighted above over the intentions of the poster to depict a certain "kind" of Jewish person. 
#The sentence "Charlie is a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq and the war on terror." needs to be expanded in order to clarify Wolf's stance, and it needs to be justified in fact, but with consideration for the primary medium that Wolf works in.
#The sentence "Charlie has repeated the claim that the Palestinian people have no right to exist, and argues they suffer from a victim mentality.", is flawed. It says he "...repeats the claim..." but does not say that he has actually made the claim, or who he is repeating. The sentence is highly contentious, suggestive that Wolf may have a genocidal point-of-view. There is no attempt to justify this with fact or references. The sentence has no NPOV. I doubt the basis and accuracy of the claim.
#The sentence "He favours right-wing American outlets such as the National Review for his news." is written without justification in fact or without clarification and is not NPOV. I doubt the basis and accuracy of the claim.
#Contains a link to a site titled "Reasons why Knocknaheeney is shit - mentions throwing rocks at buses" which is has little relation to the subject of the article, other than the fact that he mentioned the phenomona on his radio programme for a while. It is also degrogatory about a place without any justifiable encyclopedic merit.
#The article frequently refers to "Charlie" when it should be "Wolf"
#The general tone of the article is of one that suggests the authors hate Charlie Wolf, and is without NPOV.
#"Regular caller" section is redundant and has no encyclopedic value. I have a particular concerns over the inclusion of "Hot tub Jen" and "Alan the Dub", which at best has neglible informative value.
#There have been strides forwards in this version's "Cork Talk Back" section in the last few days, but I think it would benefit from tightening up, particularly in relation to the "bus in Knocknaheeney" story, the value of which is questionable. 
#The sentence "He would often do impersonations of his stressed boss Henry who would say "Ahh, liek" when ever Charlie asked him for something." has little value.
#Wolf works on a talk radio programme. In the course of his job as a radio presenter, on occasion he naturally has to play devil's advocate the wide variety of callers to his show, and vice versa. Taking comments made out of context and neglecting to document other contrary and conflicting comments that Wolf makes is remiss and makes it hard to maintain NPOV. McGonicle 00:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for your input, I think that the first thing is to cite this stuff. After it is cited it can be NPOV'd There is a tutorial at Wikipedia:Footnotes. If it isn't cited, it can be removed to the talk page pending verification (see: WP:CITE). I think it is worth giving the other user a few days to respond. Did you read the Knocknaheeny link? It says nice things about the place too. I actually started the Knocknaheeny article after reading it. - FrancisTyers 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version of 195.92.67.*** 

message: This mediation seems to be going nowhere, one of the participants hasn't made any contribution at all. I suggest you edit as you wish, I'll keep this open in case the other side shows up, but give it a week and I'll close it. Is this ok? - FrancisTyers 15:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for your time and interest in mediating this subject. I am very interested in the concept of wikipedia, and my original determination to refine this article was primarily motivated by the fact that there were definate issues for legal concern. In the last few days, one of Wolf's fellow presenters, James Whale, became quite vocal about  hsi wikipedia entry (which at that time seemed quite uncontroversial) and that he would start legal proceedings if he felt there were grounds for it. In the wikipedia, not only is there the immediate article which remains published, but as all former articles are archived, these are in effect published too, and potentially of legal concern. This kind of informal mediation is a good first step in establishing the correct way in conducting debate in an entry such as this where the etiquette had been neglected. If the anonymous poster was not prepared to take part in the debate, then their contributions, whether worthy or not are subject to being altered or removed. I will wait for a short while longer for a response, and failingthat, I will rewrite again, moving all debated elements to discussion. McGonicle 20:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any legal doubts, revisions can be removed. I think there has to be a very strong case for this though. From WP:LEGAL, Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia.. I would agree with your final point, but I would go further in saying that as this is a Wiki, their contributions may be altered, moved, played around with to your hearts content :) People can't own pages (WP:OWN).- FrancisTyers 11:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Going nowhere

message: Ok, seeing as this is going nowhere, I'm going to go ahead and close the case. Edit the article as normal :) If at any point you are in need of further mediation, you know where to call ;) - FrancisTyers 00:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers man, thank you very much for your input :) McGonicle 12:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation closed

message: Can we have some citation regarding Wolf's stance on evolution and interpreting Genesis literally, please? It is presented here as fact, and although I think Wolf is an imbecile, I find it hard to accept he holds this view Nsign 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided the reference above; there isn't much more I can do, except order an archive copy at £50 per hour. It wasn't a passing comment; he devoted much of his show to the topic.—Laurence Boyce 14:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution views 

message: The use of "Charlie" throughout the article is inappropriately familiar and "chummy" for what is intended to be a factual encyclopedic article. I have therefore changed it to "Wolf". I have also removed the reference to Wolf's pronunciation of the word "glacier" which is irrelevant and pointless.Nsign 09:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Familiarity 

message: While listening to charlie on cork talks back I have never heard him say anything such as that, in fact he seemed to have no problem with homosexuality at all, there is also no citation for this quote. another few quotes seem like they are just the views of stereotypical right-wing extremists and might need to be removed -- 83.71.85.19 21:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality quote 

message: Hi there. In the unlikely event that you read discussion pages, could you please explain your edits here. In particluar, could you please explain why do you not like the reference to Wolf's views on evolution, which are entirely factual. (see above) —Laurence Boyce 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello 86.4.25.40  

message: Someone has edited the sentence describing how Wolf described Rachel Corrie as "scum" to have him calling her a "mushroom". I suspect this is an attempt by an interested party to make this incident look less unpleasant; however, whatever the motivation, the word used was indeed "scum" as referred to in the Ofcom report which can be read by following the link at the bottom of the page, therefore I have changed it back to its accurate representation. Nsign (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Controversies' section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Charlie Wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110725183650/http://www.presstv.com/Programs/player/?id=69483 to http://www.presstv.com/Programs/player/?id=69483
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charlie Wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515144427/http://www.ofcom.org.uk:80/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb43/issue52.pdf to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb43/issue52.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312142856/http://www.charliewolf.com:80/audio/archive/ to http://www.charliewolf.com/audio/archive/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified