The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
A news item involving Phil Valentine was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 August 2021. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
... there was a massive amount of unsourced info, which has been removed per WP:BLP. Ravenswing 19:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
{{
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)
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)
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)
Valentine had questioned the need of vaccinations on his radio program.
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.
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Valentine spent most of the COVID-19 pandemic publicly casting doubtssounds 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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
A news item involving Phil Valentine was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 August 2021. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
... there was a massive amount of unsourced info, which has been removed per WP:BLP. Ravenswing 19:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
{{
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)
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)
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)
Valentine had questioned the need of vaccinations on his radio program.
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.
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Valentine spent most of the COVID-19 pandemic publicly casting doubtssounds 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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)