Talk:Phil Valentine

Website in title

I took out the website in the intro section because it is already listed in external links. Putting it in the introduction made it look a lot less encyclopedic and more like advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.144.134 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Up for AfD or otherwise ...

... there was a massive amount of unsourced info, which has been removed per WP:BLP. Ravenswing 19:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Focus on career

For an article about a radio talk show host, there is surprisingly little here about his radio career. The sources ([1] and [2], for example) exist and this text needs to be written. - Dravecky (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's probably because Phil touts himself as more of a conservative operative than a radio talk show host. Remember that this is the man who took credit for Al Gore losing Tennessee in 2000. Although he probably gives himself more credit than is warranted for Gore's defeat in his home state, Valentine's smear campaign against Gore didn't help. Besides, GWB ended up becoming President, 9/11 happened, the Iraq War happened, GWB was re-elected because Kerry didn't fight back emphatically enough against the Swifities, then Obama won and the racism that we assumed was gone from America was resurrected by DJT, who rode a wave of subliminal anti-Semitism and overt anti-Latino and anti-Muslim rhetoric en route to the White House. Nice going, Phil. The Fence Straddler (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely agree a lot more needs to be added about his radio career. He was #1 in his market consistently. Also started as a disk jockey in Nashville. A lot more needs to be said about is other work such as his other documentaries like Rock This Boat and The Haunted Cabin, the PodGOATs, his newspaper articles. He was also quirky, creating a fake British pop group and country star, and doing numerous paradies. Really it seems to mainly exist as a hit piece right now. I'll work on adding material. FOP2021 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phil Valentine. 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://archive.is/20130117034750/http://anthemfilmfestival.com/Awards.aspx to http://anthemfilmfestival.com/Awards.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Public statements about Covid-19 vaccinations

Shouldn't Valentin's outspoken public statements about Covid-19 vaccinations (including his personal choice to not receive the vaccine) be at least mentioned briefly in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOLD Go for it! 68.48.107.79 (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: He is now hospitalized after getting COVID-19 and has "changed his tune".

• CNN, Paul P. Murphy (24 July 2021). "Family says conservative radio host has changed his tune on vaccines after he was hospitalized with COVID-19". FOX10 News. Retrieved 26 July 2021. {{cite web}}: |last1= has generic name (help) --2603:6081:1C00:1187:2879:F5B3:5682:86C6 (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone is trying to use a citation from the New York Times That is paywalled. Also the news week article states “Phil would like for his listeners to know that while he has never been an 'anti-vaxer' he regrets not being more vehemently 'Pro-Vaccine,'" the statement read. It went on: "Please continue to pray for his recovery and PLEASE GO GET VACCINATED!" So can we please stop with the he was an anti-vaxer? The above are words from his own mouth that he was not an anti-vaxer. Paige Matheson (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t know that a paywall article was allowed. My apologies. But I still stand by what I posted about Phil Valentine stating he was never an anti-vaxer. Paige Matheson (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he's changed his mind does not change the fact that he previously mocked the vaccine and discouraged people from receiving it, as supported by the NYT reliable source. CodeTalker (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're removing text and nytimes as a source, @Paige Matheson:, it clearly describes the fine line on being antivax/vax skeptic fairly well: "scoffed at the need to get vaccinated". It doesn't call him anti-vax. It seems to describe his viewpoint in a precise way. Please discuss rather than edit warring. tedder (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Tedder, I apologized above about the paywall, had no idea it could be used as a source since not everyone can see it.Paige Matheson (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Your undo was after your apology. I'll undo that and you can discuss here. tedder (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I wasn’t edit warring. I came to the talk page with what I thought was wrong pretty much as soon I saw vandalism or changes I thought might not be correct. I even apologized and that’s not enough. Forget it, I don’t care about Wikipedia any longer. Try to do the right thing and get bitched at. How come you’re not accusing others of edit warring? They didn’t come to the talk page like I did. Actually I went to an admin and asked for page protection and was denied when all this started. You can stick Wikipedia right up your ass Tedder, since you like to be a smart ass with your “I’ll undo that and you can discuss it here” when I was discussing it here the entire time. Paige Matheson (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

All antivaxxers say they are not antivaxxers. They are all "pro-safe-vaccine" or similar crap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The article states in a sentence:

Valentine had questioned the need of vaccinations on his radio program.

However, on Sat August 21 CNN wrote in an article about his death:

Phil Valentine, a Nashville-based conservative radio talk show host who had questioned whether it was necessary for all people to get Covid-19 vaccines, died on Saturday, his employer, WWTN Radio, announced on Twitter.

and

"Phil would like for his listeners to know that while he has never been an 'anti-vaxer' he regrets not being more vehemently 'Pro-Vaccine', and looks forward to being able to more vigorously advocate that position as soon as he is back on the air, which we all hope will be soon," his brother Mark Valentine wrote on July 22.

This sounds to me a bit differently.--2003:CF:3F11:ADFC:BCC7:39B5:9157:DECF (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

People had a long quote from Valentine's blog that summarized his views on vaccinated. I added this. FOP2021 (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi MarydaleED, can you explain why you're removing the qualifiers I added like vaccine MANDATES? From the quote I placed, which was quoted by People Magazine, a secondary source, he was not anti-vax, but against requiring vaccines for everyone. This is a very different position and clearly provable. Shouldn't we protect the deceased from misrepresentation of their viewpoints when we have their viewpoints available? FOP2021 (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your question, FOP2021. I don't know what you mean by "qualifiers." A Wikipedia article is a summary of information about the subjects. The life of this subject has been adequately summarized in this article. If anything is lacking, it is information about his early life and the early parts of his career, which we had difficulty documenting and sourcing. I encourage you to spend your time in that area. We are not here to damn or "protect the deceased," but to present an objective summary of his life, highlighting the part of his life that justifies a Wikipedia article. As it pertains to this subject, the issue is not the subject's position on all vaccinations, only his position on the COVID-19 vaccination, and that point is clearly and objectively stated. There is no place in this article that states or implies that this person was against all vaccinations, so that is not a can of worms to open. If you have a connection to this subject or strong opinions about him, you should allow other editors to edit this article. I don't know this subject and my interest is only in ensuring the article adheres to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. There is no place in this article where the subject has been misrepresented. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

MarydaleEd, the issue that I have is that the statement: "Valentine was an outspoken skeptic of wearing masks and vaccinations for the COVID-19 virus." is false as written. He stated quite clearly that he was in favor of the Covid vaccine and that those who were at risk should get it. He was just against forced vaccinations, instead saying everyone should evaluate their own situation and decide if they should get vaccinated. I therefore think it should say: "Valentine was an outspoken skeptic of wearing masks and against forced vaccinations for the COVID-19 virus." If you listen to the lyrics of The Vaxman or read his December 20th blog article, this is clear. FOP2021 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Despite my disdain for social media, I wanted to be sensitive to your concerns so I started days ago researching Phil Valentine in his own words on social media, and my research confirms that the sources used in this article and the comments herein are accurate. Phil Valentine was vocal on social media against masks and the COVID-19 vaccinations and I can only assume his radio show reflected his opinions. You can start on his blog on Wednesday, November 25, 2020, entitled "Another COVID freak-out," but it doesn't end there. I have been patient and encouraging, but it is clear that you have come here because you have some unusual interest in him and you are uninterested in Wikipedia or its standards. Perhaps you are grieving his passing, but whitewashing his Wikipedia article is not the way to do it. This man clearly made a mistake and paid for it with his life. It is a tragedy, but we cannot change what he said, and I believe his family agrees since they have made no effort to remove his comments from social media, to their credit. I have said all I can say on this subject. My explanations for my edits will be in my edit summaries. I truly wish you the best. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The Nov 25th blog says nothing about the vaccine. I'm not even sure it was available by then. It is on masks and he's advising people to not rely on masks if they're vulnerable because they don't work well enough. Reread the entry. His views on the vaccine are in his Dec 27, 2020 blog where he says people who are vulnerable should get vaccinated. No where does he say the vaccine is not effective. If you can find one instance where he does, link it and I'll shut up. If not, change the article back yourself. FOP2021 (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree he said people without comorbidities were probably safer not getting vaccinated and changed the section to say so. It is now accurate. FOP2021 (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Still, you do not adhere to proper Wikipedia formatting on Talk pages even though you were advised of the problem days ago and were asked to correct it. I told you that if you were looking for support for the information in this article you could start with the blog I referenced and that the information "doesn't end there." While I found sources ad nauseam for this subject's position mocking COVID-19 vaccinations, that particular blog referenced his position on masks. The information in this article is accurate and properly sourced. You are arguing about content that does not exist. No where in this article does it say that this man said that any vaccine was ineffective. It is clear from this Talk page, including your comments above in the "Focus on career" section, that you joined Wikipedia a week ago with an agenda, to make sure this man's article viewed him favorably. I also believe your username, FOP2021, stands for "Friends of Phil 2021," revealing you have a connection to the subject of this article in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, WP:CONFLICT. You seem to have no interest in doing what is best for Wikipedia or even for this article. I will continue to edit according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, but I will participate no longer in dialogue about efforts to whitewash history. I rewrote your last edit so that it accurately reflects the information in the source, but left the spirit of what you were trying to communicate within the sentence. Although it needed assistance, that edit you made was a constructive one. Perhaps now you can turn your attention to other Wikipedia articles that need your help. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Edits

Given the fact that the subject of this article has been in the news quite a bit in the past few weeks, I thought it important that his Wikipedia page receive a thorough editing to ensure it reflects the highest of Wikipedia standards. I am beginning that task now and appreciate any assistance. My process is to ensure proper style has been observed and that statements of fact are properly sourced. As for the subject, I became aware of him only today and have no interest in him or his positions on political, social or personal issues. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The wording Valentine spent most of the COVID-19 pandemic publicly casting doubts sounds as if he spent most of his waking hours on that subject for one and a half year. Is that realistic? The Newsweek source does not have that implication: For most of the pandemic, Valentine criticized the coronavirus vaccine, casting doubts on its safety and efficacy, and strongly opposed mask mandates

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Valentine publicly cast doubts, not mentioning the extent of his engagement in that direction, may be too weak. So, if we want to avoid a verbatim quote, I cannot think of a good solution for the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, thank you for your comments. The phrase you have questioned properly falls within the the context of the source. I do not believe anyone will misunderstand it to mean Valentine did little during this period of time but consider his opinion on the virus, so I do not think this is an issue that calls for a solution. I do commend you for your critical eye in questioning the phrase and thank you for bringing to our attention. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Very active page!

UPDATE: I have finished editing this article down to the COVID part. I will jump on that tomorrow. I appreciate the assistance from other editors. This is a true collaborative effort. I have even picked up a friend or two! It is unfortunate that much of the information at the beginning of the article comes from one source, and not even a good source, but the subject of this article became nationally prominent only after he died. Perhaps other editors can dig up other good sources for that information. I tried but grew weary. God bless and happy editing!

Wow. Every time I try to make an edit I am alerted that I am editing an old version. We have at least three editors with their fingers in this article at this moment, so I will bow out until the activity slows down. Please don't take that to mean that I am not following through on the promise I made yesterday to work on bringing this article up to Wikipedia standards. It is exciting that so many are interested in helping. One note I would like to bring to the attention of other editors: instead of adding banners indicating sources are needed or more appropriate sources are needed, please make an effort to get those sources. We leave banners only as a last resort. They create a nightmare of backlog for active editors. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to add info on his paradies and some of the aspects of his radio show in a new heading called "Radio Show. The sound clips can be found on soundcloud. I assume a reference to them would be ok? Also, he was quirky and would create fake groups, one a british pop group called Chadwick Station, then a country singer named Roland Rivers. Even made a website, twitter accounts, and tour shirts. I want to include info and links to these. FOP2021 (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

FOP2021, please do not do that. That is not relevant information published by neutral third-party. I fear you don’t yet grasp the difference between writing for Wikipedia and the other media that you see. The style for writing for encyclopedias is completely different than the style allowed in other media types.

Also, you need to learn the style for writing on Talk pages. Please look through lengthy Talk pages and see how they write and what elements they used to format. I will make corrections for you this time. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi FOP2021, no, we use independent WP:SECONDARY sources to determine what facts should be in the encyclopedia. Llll5032 (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I don't understand. It seems like if I have the book in my hand or video of a guy walking his dog, it would prove he wrote a book or walked a dog more than some weekend columnist saying he did these things. It also seems like a,person's own words in a blog or a memoir would be the ultimate source when evaluating one's what were his thoughts and feelings. I'd take George Washington writing that he doesn't like cabbage in his diary over the Boston Globe saying he was a big coleslaw lover. Seems like it puts a huge amount of power in the hands of just a few people, especially since there are just two or three companies who own all of the news outlets anymore. FOP2021 (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

FOP2021, read WP:RS for this, specifically: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Llll5032 (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Also read WP:SPS: "[S]elf-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources." Llll5032 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

FOP2021, I beg your pardon, I read what you wrote again and see that I initially missed you mentioning having a "book in (your) hand." If you have a book that corroborates the content that you want to add, then by all means, add it and use the book as your source. Books are the absolute best sources. Unlike website, books do not disappear. Blogs and "a person's own words" are not proper sources. What you are missing is the principle of oversight. Content must be corroborated by an independent third party. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Radio career section

FOP2021, thanks for your work expanding the article, and information about Valentine's radio career is welcome, but we must not rely on his show webpage and paid obituary, and use independent sources instead, per WP:SELFSOURCE: "Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." WP:SOURCETYPES has a list of these independent sources, which include published books and articles by news organizations independent from the subject of this article. Llll5032 (talk)

Llll5032, as we have discussed, I am going to turn my attention to this article tomorrow or, since it’s about 2 AM where I am, it would actually be later today, and will clean up the section you referenced as well as the entire article. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, MarydaleEd. I shortened it more by removing some information that did not meet the five-part WP:SELFSOURCE test. Llll5032 (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, now it says he moved around a lot and sold health club memberships at one point. It says he did commercials, but loses that the commercials caused him to get the job in Philadelphia. Your world must be filled with beige, Llll.

Well, I'm going to pare down Mother Teresa's entry to just that she spent a lot of time walking the streets. Or how MLK are frequently. FOP2021 (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It may need to shorten more unless a reliable source is found, because per WP:SELFSOURCE, "Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." Llll5032 (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Further, for a WP:BLP article, which this is, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Llll5032 (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Sarcastic and disrespectful conduct is not tolerated on Wikipedia, FOP2021, and I must ask you to follow Wikipedia policy on civility, WP:CIVIL, one of the five pillars on which Wikipedia was founded. Llll5032, it is not necessary to remove content that got its genesis from the subject's former employer. While the WP:BLP policy also covers recently deceased people, it pertains to "contentious material." The obvious spirit of this policy is to protect the living and recently dead from derogatory or hurtful claims that could besmirch their reputations. In this case, we are providing information about the early days of this subject using words that he, and as you have pointed out, no doubt approved himself. We should not look for ghosts here where there are none. As is stated in Wikipedia policy, we must apply these rules with "common sense." They were never intended to cripple our ability to provide information. While the source used is not as strong as we would like, common sense would tell us that the subject probably participated in the creation of his biography. Wikipedia is filled with information taken from biographies in which the subjects, especially modern-day ones, no doubt participated in creating. The source, his former employer's website, is basic and includes no injurious claims or third-party concerns that warrant withholding the information. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that forbids the source from being used. Given your concern, however, I agree that it is best to eliminate the awards we cannot corroborate. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a much better article

Just wanted to let those with whom I have been editing this article this week that I have finished my edits. There is room for improvement, but it is a much better article thanks to the perseverance of devoted editors. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MarydaleEd. Sorry if I came off as cranky. My issues have been more with Wikipedia policy than either you or Llll. I agree it's much better than it was a week ago. FOP2021 (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, but you owe me no apology. As I wrote above, what you are missing is the concept of oversight and verifiability. We must be able to corroborate content by an independent third party. It is a good policy and the only way information can be trusted. People can say anything. How do you know what to trust? We are not creating information here, we are reporting what others have provided and proven to their accountability that it is accurate. That is why we provide information and immediately provide the source from which we got the information. We cannot add our own words, only paraphrase what others have verified. As editors, we can never be the source of information. Just keep at it - you'll get it! Again, pop over to my Talk page if you ever have a question or want to vent. I am happy to help! God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I really like how the article is at this point. Time to go work on something else. Best wishes.

FOP2021 (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Climate change skeptic versus denialist

I would submit that the term " climate change skeptic" is not equivalent to " climate change denialist." The former means someone who does not believe man-made climate change, as a theory, has been proven with sufficient veracity to justify the tremendous cost required for action. The latter is someone who believes climate change is proven and happening, but issues propaganda to make others not believe in it for personal financial gain. It is derived from the term, "holocaust denier," applied to those who deny the Jewish holocaust happened during the 1940s. You're basically calling people Nazis. This is equivalent to the difference between an agnostic and a satanist. Do you really feel (and can you find evidence to support) that the latter term should apply the Valentine, as well as the scientists interviewed in An Inconsistent Truth? FOP2021 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times described him as a climate change denier here but did not go into detail about his views. Are you aware of reliable sources that describe his views differently? Also, please point to a reliable source that defines these terms the way that you do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I object the deletion of climate change denier. Not only is this a referenced description, it should also be common sense that someone hwho has produced a "documentary" dedicated to spread climate denial missinformation, is a climate change denier. And please spare us from that nonsencical holocaust comparison. Holocaust deniers deny the fact of Holocaust, climate change denier deny the facts of human-caused climate change. No one is calling climate deniers Nazis, that is an absurd misrepresentation of reality! Climate denial doesn't derive from Holocaust denial, though many climate denialist claim that to style themselves as rational sceptics. On contrary, they are deniers, because they deny specific facts in specific academic fields. Plain and simple. Climate change denial is a academic term used for denial of the scientific basis of climate science. Not more, not less. And that was right what Valentine did. And, as someone who has studied climate change denial for many years, I can assure you that there are numerous academics who for many years stress that climate denial should NEVER be disquised as scepticism, as this is a complete misnomer which confuses the facts. Scepticism and denial are opposites. So please restore your deletion, as it is unwarrented, against the evidence and references and your argumentation is just wrong. Andol (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

And adding to that: Those paragraphs [3] is completely POV. Basically your writing that that climate denial documentary is right (and is so well referenced!), Al Gore is wrong and please don't listen to real experts, they just want to throw some shit, ignore them. Given the scientific consensus on climate change, this is not just far from neutral, it is completely ad odds with what is the state of knowledge. And that is not the only edit this problematic. Here [4] you even claim that the documentary has refuted An Inconvenient Truth and here [5] you make him a sceptic (again). This is whitewashing and it's at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change and with the references given. You cannot delete referenced facts and add unreferenced claims that say the opposite. That is not how Wikipedia works. Andol (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

FOP2021, I am stunned! How dare you suggest an editor called someone a "Nazi" because he or she changed an article to accurately reflect the source. You have created definitions of phrases that reflect only your point of view and have no basis in fact and then you impose those ridiculous definitions upon hard-working Wikipedia editors and start assigning blame. You have shown yourself, by your very username, to be intimately involved with this subject and you have no business editing this article, much less making accusations that could not be more false. Forgive me, but you don't know what you are doing and you have no idea how Wikipedia works despite having been provided excellent resources by myself and at least one other editor to assist you.

In the article on Tullahoma, Tennessee, you wrote, "So, you've just undone everything I've done and I've wasted a few hours of me time.... I have lived in Tullahoma for 22 years. I am a reliable source. Everything I wrote is accurate. How can I edit and add things I know to be true if I can't find someone who wrote an article? Note, the newspaper is right about 50% of the time about anything. FOP2021 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)"

All you are doing here is creating more work for already overworked volunteer editors. I truly do not mean to be harsh but my patience was already stretched with you on this article, and then I come here and find you accusing someone of "basically calling people Nazis." I have never encountered anything like this since I joined Wikipedia in 2010 and never have I felt the need to write so passionately. Despite solid evidence to the contrary, I am speechless. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I am used to such behaviour. I encounter it all the time, since my main subject is fringe theories, and people who want to defend beliefs with no basis in reality and with no good reasons backing them up are forced to use bad reasoning, sometimes very bad reasoning. This specific line about Holocaust denial is a pretty normal thing coming from climate change deniers. I guess the atmosphere is very different in less contentious areas. Sorry for the off-topic contribution, I just wanted to add context. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It must be exhausting to always be editing with people who want to influence the tones of articles. Thankfully, FOP2021 has been blocked indefinitely. That editor seemed to have joined Wikipedia about two weeks ago for the sole purpose of whitewashing this subject. The time I had to devote to Wikipedia was stifled for those two weeks having to revert FOP2021's edits and then deal with his or her arguing on the Talk page. I am sorry it had to come to that editor being blocked, but it was the right thing to do. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I hope to be able to work with you again. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Complete article

Have you ever heard someone tell a story well, but then continue to ramble on long after the important elements of the story have been revealed? The storyteller didn't know to leave a good thing alone! Some Wikipedia articles are like that. Such is the case with the Phil Valentine article. Sources can be improved, but otherwise, this story has been told. Sufficient background information has been provided, as has the information about his writing, activism, illness and death. Of course, every editor is entitled to edit as he or she sees fit. Wikipedia articles are works in progress. They change, they get larger, they get smaller, and hopefully, they get better. However, I submit to Wikipedia editors that the story of Phil Valentine has been adequately and properly covered and requires no further additions, nor do any of the words or phrases need to be reworked or moved. The article is good – just as it is. One of the policies of Wikipedia that is hard for some editors to abide is WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." (Emphasis mine.) As of tonight, September 9, 2021, there are 6,373,003 English Wikipedia articles that are in serious need of editors. Please consider using your talents, skills and time elsewhere. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article, which has improved it substantially. I do want to revisit the "Controversial issues" section. While Wikipedia doesn't have strict prohibitions on "criticism"/"controversy" sections, they are generally discouraged (see Wikipedia:Controversy sections; "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, '2009 boycott' or 'Hunting incident'."). My view is that well-written articles should incorporate relevant controversies into a general narrative, rather than segregating them in a separate "Controversies" section—all the more so for someone like Valentine, whose entire career focused on courting and fomenting partisan controversy. It's not really possible, in my view, to neatly separate "controversies" from the rest of Valentine's biography, and doing so here seems contrived.

Anyhow—I did take a shot at weaving the "controversies" section into a narrative here, which was reverted, so I wanted to open it up for further discussion. MastCell ^Talk 15:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I see your point and it is well taken. I want to thank you, as well, for your contribution to the article. Your edits have been excellent and it has been a pleasure collaborating with you to improve the article, which was, as you know, originally a bit of a mess. Although I disagree with where you put the information that is under the "Controversial issues" section when you moved it, I believe your intent was right and I think we can fix it without having to rework the article. Let me take a shot at it. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

What is up with the picture

Couldn’t you do the deceased better by placing a picture that better depicts Phil Valentine? This looks like he is staring at an oncoming train. Come on man. I never have seen Phil in this way. What did you do? Take a still capture from a potato? 2600:387:C:711B:0:0:0:A (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

As usual finding pictures under an appropriate license can be challenging. If you know of pictures that are explicitly marked for the public domain or Creative Commons license, you are welcome to upload one to Wikipedia Commons, to include it in the category and to update the image in the article or to link it here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)