Talk:Phil Valentine

message: 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)
thread_title:  Website in title 

message: ... there was a massive amount of unsourced info, which has been removed per WP:BLP.   Ravenswing   19:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up for AfD or otherwise ... 

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

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Radio career section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is a much better article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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; ). 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Complete article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is up with the picture