Talk:Nathan Phelps

Can we hold off on the deletion, plz?
Still digging up info, but I thought I'd toss the stub up in case anyone else had more immediately on hand. As mentioned, Phelps is an author, etc. Dysperdis (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This might help:

http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa/Nate_Phelps_Breaking_the_mould-10635.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bildoony (talk • contribs) 19:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of references available for Phelps now, and more variation in the sources. I think there's more to say as well, it currently goes pretty much straight in to his 9/11 experience and could do with a bit more context. I'll collect some bits together and try to do an update and a bit of a restructure. Behind The Wall Of Sleep (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Really glad to see this comment pop up on my watch list "Wall of Sleep" it has been on my to-do list for some time now and I never seem to find the time. Look forward to reading your version.Sgerbic (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I've added a few more citations and some proper context so it flows properly and can be more like a biography. I think it still needs some work but I will try to tidy it up a bit now. Behind The Wall Of Sleep (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Religion
has changed the "religion" field in the infobox from "Atheist" to "None (atheist)" with the comment that it is "erroneous to characterize atheism as a religion." I disagree with that statement personally but atheism is a very big umbrella - some atheists identify as non-religious, others don't, and many people who are non-religious do not self-identify as atheist. I have not reverted, but we should come to a consensus as to what the infobox should say.

In the article referenced for Nate's religion in the article, he identifies himself as an atheist, but also as a humanist, and doesn't specifically say that he is non-religious. None of these are necessarily mutually exclusive. What should the infobox say? I lean toward "Atheist" given his own words on the topic. Ivanvector (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How can you say his religion is atheist when atheism is not a religion. Regardless of what his beliefs are, "atheist" can never be correct here. If we are unsure of his beliefs, better to leave the section blank until we do know for sure. --Dmol (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nathan Phelps. 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/20140316135925/http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/03/fred-phelps-daughters-may-misread-bible-but-they-know-the-law/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/03/fred-phelps-daughters-may-misread-bible-but-they-know-the-law/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110207125110/http://natephelps.com/ to http://natephelps.com/

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) 17:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sloppy sourcing
This article is fraught with sloppy choices in sources. While some reputable, solid, mainstream media choices are noted -- The [Toronto] Globe and Mail, [London Daily] Telegraph, The Guardian, the Topeka Capital-Journal, ABC, CNN, etc. -- there are an astonishing number of blatantly biased publications cited as sources -- ranging from The Thinking Atheist to The Christian Post -- and an amazing number of private blogs (specifically unacceptable by Wikipedia standards; see: WP:QUESTIONABLE).

This sloppy sourcing is a blatant defiance of two of the foremost core principles of Wikipedia: 'WP:NPOV: "Neutral Point of View" -- and WP:RS: "Reliable sources."  The latter guideline states clearly:


 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
 * (I added italics for clarity ~Zxtxtxz)

I urge all editors involved to begin deleting those highly subjective and unqualified references -- and any text that is solely based upon them -- or replacing them with more suitably professional, functionally neutral references that support the statements made. Note that Biographies of living persons states that:
 * We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. 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.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

No matter how passionate your feelings are about this person and surrounding issues, Wikipedia is NOT a forum for waving your faction's banner, left, right or center, or echoing partisan spin. This is a site for reporting credible information, from credible, substantial, relatively non-partisan sources. This is especially true for articles about specific PEOPLE, and particularly those articles which also characterize other people. I don't want to be the deleting type, so no more sloppy references, OK?
 * ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)