This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
ConcordeMandalorian 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 ( [1]), 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)
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#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
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 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states that:
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?
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
ConcordeMandalorian 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 ( [1]), 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)
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#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
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 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states that:
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?