Talk:Charlie Daniels

"chickenhawk"?

Cho exactly is calling Daniels a "chickenhawk"? We should have a citation for a charge like this. TDC 22:51, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

For real, what a loser whoever wrote that. Charlie Daniels rules. Also, the third citation is completely irrelevant and I'm deleting it... now.

Changed 'acknowleged' to 'said'

Here's why: Acknowleged, written in that context means that he's accepted something to be known as fact such as to acknowlege that the temperature of the earth has risen in recent years or to acknowlege that the New York Mets have seven starting pitchers on their spring training roster. There is, however, nothing factual about not criticizing veterans. It is a personal choice on behalf of some people. You can think it's in poor taste--which to me makes no sense because service in the military gives no one a free pass, nor is a requisite for citizenship. Instead, using the word 'said' better reflects Mr. Daniels' sentiments--which of course are generally speaking very simplistic and (editorializing here)and ignorant. So unless he uses that word just use 'said'.

External links

> 29 June 2005 TDC (once again, please explain the notability of anon "articles" from websites, or it goes bye bye)
> 29 June 2005 Gamaliel m (Reverted edits by TDC to last version by Wasted Time R)
> 29 June 2005 TDC (anon criticisms from extreme partisan sites hardly constitutes a notable criticism)

I agree with TDC on this, I don't think the chickenhawk citations are worthy – they come from obviously slanted, poorly put-together, low-visibility partisan web sites. I made several additions to this article recently about Daniels' political works and views, that show the apparent evolution of his views, but more could probably be added. Also Volunteer Jam needs a lot of work. Wasted Time R 29 June 2005 17:01 (UTC)

[after more rv battles between the above two] I looked through Daniels' website "Soapbox" columns to see if he directly addressed the chickenhawk charge. Unfortunately couldn't find anything, but I did get a couple of columns where he said he couldn't criticize Kerry. So I included a reference to this in the article. Seems like a possible compromise. Wasted Time R 29 June 2005 18:59 (UTC)

I agree that the recent addition is perfectly reasonable. TDC June 29, 2005 19:13 (UTC)

Saviano

Err...maybe I'm wrong, but I don't exactly see the part about Saviano belonging in this article. Daniels is not directly involved in the incident. His publicist? Yeah. But him? No. So...I'm gonna remove it. If someone thinks I'm wrong, let's talk here.

Kell 03:41, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

This incident recieved a great deal of coverage in alternative newspapers and places like that. Certainly more important than his appearance in some random music video. Gamaliel 21:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but we must remember that the Wikipedia's purpose is the collection, categorization, and presentation of facts that are pertinent to the subject, yes? Charlie Daniels, at least to me, is first and foremost a musician, an entertainer. Therefore, records pertaining to his career, i.e. an appearance in some random music video, are very important. The question, though, is whether the Saviano incident, covered by alternative newspapers as it may be, is pertinent to the Charlie Daniels article. In my mind, if there is going to be any mention of Saviano at all in the Wikipedia, it is to have their own small entry, not as part of Charlie Daniels', becaue Daniels has only a coincidental part in it. As I said before, if his publicist at the time had an article, then yes, Saviano should be included. But the only connection between Daniels and Saviano is that Daniels happened to have an article/editorial in the newsletter that Saviano received. He did not distribute the newsletter. He did order his publicist to get the woman fired as far as we know (that would be speculation anyway, which really doesn't have much, if any, place in an encyclopedia). So it is not pertinent.

If you would like, since I'm sure we won't be able to come to an agreement on this, maybe we should call in a moderator or some such, to make the call? I will look into doing that.

--149.159.22.83 20:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

NINJA EDIT: This is Kell, by the way. Forgot to log in.

This whole section is extremely POV. Kirt Webster has said that he didn't call to complain but to find out if they had cancelled a special on Daniel's set to run in a few days since he had received a letter from Saviano claiming she was starting a boycot against Daniels. Saviano was fired for sending out an email calling for a boycott of Daniels which the email said was being sent to 2000 people, and for not making it clear that she was speaking only for herself and not as a reprentative of the company. Saviano didn't state in her emails that she was using her personal account and not speaking for the company until after she'd been told by her boss not to send anymore emails to Webster. She sent another one anyway, but finally made it clear that it was not a company message. Saviano sent a total of 6 emails to Webster all to complain. I doubt I'm the only person who isn't outraged that a TV producer would be fired for getting into a flame war with a member of the entertainment industry that continued even after she was ordered to stop. Other people are entitled to feel differently of course, but the article needs to give all the facts so people can decide for themselvse. She hired a lawyer, but in the end did not sue which is pretty good sign she had no case. Furthermore, Daniel's has said that he knew nothing about her e-mail or the fact that his publicist his contacted GAC until it bacame a news story.--Heathcliff 07:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Volunteer Jam II

Where is it? Or did he just skip it and go straight to Volunteer Jam III?

Vandal

I noticed someone wrote "He is now dead as a doornail" At the bottom of the page. It has now been removed but be on guard for more vandalism. 12:30 5 April 2006

In the Hall?

Is Charlie Daniels in the Country Music Hall of Fame? - Alakey2010 29 May 2006 09:11 pm.

Geezer

Charlie Daniels is almost a geezer. —Mariusz Zielinski 23:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

True. He's going to be 70 in October. —Gm1121983 20:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)