Talk:Nate Parker

Prior deletion
According to the page log, on 00:10, 25 September 2007 deleted "Nate Parker" ‎for the following speedy deletion reason:‎(CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fram says the orginal article was about another person when it was deleted. Ikip (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a highschool student from Maine born in 1992 without any mention of acting or any other notable activity. Fram (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Content removal
and, I don't understand the rationale behind the content removal. Please discuss it here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nate Parker. 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/20081205014244/http://www.pbs.org:80/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200801/20080118_nateparkerjurnee.html to http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200801/20080118_nateparkerjurnee.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Editorial efforts
I am glad to see this article is finally getting attention from other editors. I don't have time to do the research that this article really deserves. However, I have time to make suggestions to the newly involved editors and to some extent. It is a bit of a disappointment to see that the extensive efforts have been to make the rape charges so prominent. What the article needs is an editor who wants to summarize movie reviews of Parker's career. That is the type of editorial effort that would make this article a better resource. BrillLyle, since you have so much time to tend to this article I would suggest that you begin to beef up the acting summary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ugh. I love how you have the time to write suggestions but don't have the time to clean up the article. LOLs!
 * While I agree with you that Parker's acting career is not fully expanded upon and does not reflect much of his notable work, I am not going to do more than I have already done. I have done A LOT and the article was in pretty bad shape, in my opinion, and much of the content was pretty much fluff and/or #copyvio copy pasted from most of the sources. I added tags to expand the sections because yes, you're right. If folks want to contribute to his acting and filmmaking career then they should.
 * I only came to the page to find out more about the rape accusations after reading the Variety and Deadline articles. I was dismayed to see how the rape was minimized and folded into a casual paragraph at the top of the article. Vehemently disagreed with that so I added what I consider to be a more appropriately reflective of the gravity of the incident to its own section, which I think is more than fair. I believe the current state of the section is justified and that yes the rest of his article should be updated and expanded upon, but not vice versa.
 * I wasn't super interested in fixing this entry -- again laughing here because I didn't have time to do this either, but sigh oh well I did it. There was such contrast to what I had added and the condition of the rest of the article that it felt only right to try and balance out what was there -- and remove the fluff -- so that the article would be a bit more balanced and neutral. This was a difficult article to work on, as I'm not thrilled with what I was learning about the case but I hope at least the information is fairly presented.
 * -- BrillLyle (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude, look around. I use to crank out articles like crazy. Now I work Uber 50-60 hours a week. Most of that was time spent cranking WP articles before. It use to be common to see one or two dozen articles by me nominated at WP:GAN. Believe me I now about the difference between cleaning up articles and writing suggestions about cleaning up articles. Since your User page is barren, I assumed you were a bit of an inexperienced editor who might take a suggestion on how to help improve WP kindly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. looking at Kobe Bryant, I don't think this rape coverage is overemphasized, I just think the rest of his career is underrepresented in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ha! Barren?!? Wow that's a bit harsh, isn't it? :-) Just because I don't fancy up my User page doesn't mean I'm not an active contributing editor to Wikipedia. I like it being the way it is, sort of minimal, so new editors don't have to wade through loads of stuff. That said, I have only been around since 2013 but I'm pretty active. Also I believe in quality over quantity. But I digress.
 * Anyway, I think the article is in okay shape now. Hope others will add to the areas that need development (his career section). And that the page doesn't need a self-protect to prevent vandalism. -- BrillLyle (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

IMO the article needs more work to be truly well written. I made a few minor grammatical and punctuational edits just now, but I am not knowledgeable enough to fix problems like the sentence "He stated this in protest to the tired theme of black actors having major roles where they don dresses." That sentence badly needs context. For instance, what "tired theme" is this? I (representing some readers, no doubt) never heard of it. The way to handle that is to provide a bit of context that is more informative than a list of black actors with, again, no context. A suggestion is to use quotation, i.e., instead of "the tired theme of black actors having major roles where they don dresses", attributed to no one, quote actual words of Parker about it. Then we know where that "theme" idea comes from. A sentence or two to explain why Parker thinks that is a theme would help, too. Note that the important part is not whether it is (or isn't) a theme in reality, but what Parker thinks about it, since it's his reasons we're interested in. Zaslav (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. My interest is not in Parker but in good writing.  Nothing is perfect (I'm always editing my own writing to fix a newly recognized problem), so please don't take my criticism personally.  Zaslav (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the copyediting fixes! I agree. That specific section -- which I still hesitate whether it should even be there, as it doesn't have great citations and support -- was a mess and had a lot of editorializing, so I removed content not related to Parker. I also renamed the heading to hopefully be more neutral and clear. Agree the article needs additional content (see above). I am not the most gifted Wikipedia editor in terms of copyediting, but my concern here is that the page is as balanced and neutral as possible. I encourage other editors to add relevant content and content to the sections that definitely need work -- see tags within article sections. BrillLyle (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Section reorder
At least consider creating a dividing section between "charity" and the rape charges/homophobia accusations, the current position directly following charity minimizes the impact of these charges and accusations on the critical discussion regarding the subject's work, and has drastically affected the amount of primary sources that may be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C3:4001:928F:34D8:B3C1:BE64:DF7A (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand the idea behind the move of sections but I think when the order is changed in this way -- pushing the events from years ago to the top, especially above the typical order of Early life, then Career -- it becomes an editorial decision and places undue emphasis on the events. The order is pretty typical. The goal here is to maintain a neutral point of view and IMO present the information in as consistent to other entries way. I don't hear an argument here why a person's long career should be placed behind events he was involved with in college. I think it's unfair. I am not thrilled with any of this info but I also want to make sure this is not a situation where there is a crowd sourced attack on this person. I think the raw data is damning enough. It is unnecessary to add further emphasis editorially. -- BrillLyle (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

False claim removed
I removed the following sentence: "Parker was acquitted on the grounds that he and the victim had engaged in consensual oral sex the day before the alleged rape." as it's factually incorrect. The link was merely to the trial transcript, which showed the relevant testimony, but of course in no way sources the claim. The basis for Parker's acquittal, obviously, can not be arbitrarily (or ideologically) said to be because of a line of testimony by a third party. The grounds for which the jury acquits a defendant, is the juries' own and any claim regarding why they chose so must come from them. Outside parties may have a personal belief regarding the basis for acquittal by a jury, but in no way can that be stated as some sort of fact in an encyclopedia entry; and it certainly can't be sourced by linking a transcript of testimony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxx12345 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Point taken. While I disagree this was a false claim, I understand that this sentence was not fully supported by the citation and did not support the sentence in as good of a way as it could have. I updated and clarified that sentence, providing the source of the position in both The Daily Beast as well as the Slate articles. The citation pointing to the transcript is the record of the details of the oral sex as well as the lawyer's focus on consent. -- BrillLyle (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It is a false claim. The only thing that can be claimed is that some believed this aspect of testimony was the reason for the jury acquitting.  This is so with any criminal case.  I also just removed the following: "and Parker's culpability for the act – even though he was found not guilty of rape."  The acts were criminal code violations for which he was acquitted: by definition he's not culpable.  Also, trying to argue the affirmative and negative, that he was acquitted of 'rape' but still culpable of the 'acts' is obviously inconsistent, and appears to be a fairly clear bias.  He was acquitted in the criminal case, and there was no civil case, so he's not culpable, period. (I also punched up that mess of a sentence. :) Maxxx12345 (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Your edit needs to be removed. The link is not an analysis of the case, it's an opinion of two journalists who aren't even qualified to analyse a criminal court proceeding.  It's a clear NPOV violation.  Maxxx12345 (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree. The links are analysis of the case. I think I've proven that I am editing with a NPOV and I don't need to defend this to you here. I am reverting your removal of content because it is not justified in any way. I don't want to argue but I am not sure how you are contributing here. It actually seems like you are pushing your own point of view here, and are not being cooperative as an editor. Also Parker's culpability is the reason why this is even in the press BrillLyle (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The links are not legal analysis of the case because the authors are in no way qualified to write a legal analysis of a felony criminal prosecution. The sections I removed are completely justified.  I'm removing quite obviously inappropriate content.  Of course you can't claim an acquitted defendant is culpable, that's true by definition and of course not a point of view: it's a legal tautology.  And as for why I came to the article, a student asked me to look at, which is usually why I edit at wikipedia.  I'm a philosophy professor with one of my areas of focus being philosophy of law.  We'll get another editor who's also not a layman and they'll make the same points, as can happen when people start editing information involving legal cases because they're in the news.  Maxxx12345 (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, just curious, with a light edit history I am wondering what drew you to this page? Did you see a recent tweet I made, or a recent Signpost comment I made? It seems like there's something weird going on here. BrillLyle (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , thanks for your editorial efforts. We definitely need input from people who understand legal nuances, like yourself.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kinds thoughts I appreciate it, Tony. Also the following should be removed as it's factually incorrect: "however, his accuser declined to testify again and prosecution did not pursue the retrial."  Turns out that this was a claim that appears to be a reporting error that was picked up by several publications.  The district attorney's office has set the record straight on this issue, and the entry should properly reflect that fact.  I'm also glad to see the culpability sentence is gone.  I'm not sure people understand that such a statement was a textbook example of libel.  Maxxx12345 (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for your attention to this challenging entry. it would be helpful if you could provide a secondary source here on the talk page for the reporting error about the victim declining to testify; if we can confirm that I'm sure we'd all agree it should be removed (and then no need to cite it in the entry.) Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional information - please add
There has been a new article that should be added to the sexual assault section. But I have stopped editing the page, so if some of the other editors want to add it, that would be a really nice thing to do. Ebony article. Thanks -- BrillLyle (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Lede paragraphs
I think we need to include something about the alleged 1999 rape trial in the opening of this wiki entry. I did a quick crawl and over 80% of all news articles ever written about Parker related to the alleged rape. At this point, this is what he is known to the broader public for. As such it needs to be included in the lede.

I placed a simple placeholder paragraph there that gives a brief overview of the situation, but others should edit it so as to make it more useful to those who come to this article looking for information on Parker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:14C5:C17E:5989:B3B3:560C:132D (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It may belong in the WP:LEAD, but the LEAD is suppose to be a summary of the main body. Currently the LEAD exceeds the main body in terms of detail in some ways. Furthermore, I don't think it should be any larger a part of his lead than Kobe Bryant's case. Details about 60 Minutes and the rape depiction in the movie should not be in the LEAD unless they are in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As it stands now the lead is a bit too long.  I think it was fine the way it was earlier - a brief mention of the controversy, with the expectation that it would be covered more fully in the body of the text below - but the reference to 60 Minutes should definitely be cut, if nothing else; it's already in the body of the article, where it can be handled more extensively. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Not wanting to play a Gay is notable
So he does not want black gay roles-- and? Is that notable. How is it controversial? I do not think Denzel is doing gay roles either. But still why is it notable for inclusion in this article. --169.1.126.5 (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nate Parker. 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/20150221194121/http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/moviemom/2015/02/black-reel-awards-selma-ties-the-record.html to http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/moviemom/2015/02/black-reel-awards-selma-ties-the-record.html

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) 19:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Undue Weight
Came to this article via the GAR request. Seeing the existence and length of the controversies section this easily fails the neutrality criteria. Have tagged it for now to see if any editors are interested in cutting it back r splitting it off. AIRcorn (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Trimmed this myself and it has held so far so will remove the GAR request. AIRcorn (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. I think some of the stuff in the lead, particularly specifics on the outcome of some his movies, is definitely undue and belongs in the article for the actual movie, or further down in the page as specifics. 2600:1010:B143:FADB:D9A8:8EF7:51CF:D016 (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)