Jump to content

Talk:Nate Parker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNate Parker has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 25, 2007Candidate for speedy deletionDeleted
December 15, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 11, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that actor Nate Parker was an All-American wrestler in both high school and college?
Current status: Good article

Prior deletion

[edit]

According to the page log, on 00:10, 25 September 2007 Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) 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)[reply]

Fram says the orginal article was about another person when it was deleted. Ikip (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nate Parker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Lead needs to be expanded to serve as an adequate summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. You don't need references in the lead as long as the information is included and cited in the main text. Per WP:OVERLINK some common words like "scholarship," "television commercial," "soundtrack" and such should be de-linked. I would suggest re-arranging the "Background" section to be chronological. The prose is a bit off in places:
    I have expanded the Lead a bit. There are two citation options with the lead. Either fully cited or fully uncited. I have gone with the former. I don't think any of those three words you mentioned is so common to the international reader that they should be delinked. Maybe to the American reader they might be, but not to the international reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    His mother never married his biological father, but did wed the man who gave Parker his last name. What was the first husband's name and the bio-dad's name?
    Original ref gives no more info. We may have to wait until later in his career when more complete biographical accounts come out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although his mother married Whitfield and moved to Maine, Parker remained close to his biological father. Do you mean emotionally close or physically close? Did he move with his mother or stay behind? Suggest combining the sentence about his bio-dad's death with the previous sentence, "...remained close with his biological father until his death when Parker was 11."
    I reedited to clarify the closeness. Thus, I did not merge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Parker became involved in classroom fights and home power struggles with his stepfather. Do you mean his mother's first husband or second? Best to name him.
    O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nate's great-grandmother got sick and his mother moved back... With or without her husband? Did Parker live with her?
    Not really stated in source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Virginian-Pilot source has some information on how Nate got into wrestling. Including that would help fill out the article.
    O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would clarify that he was actually tried for rape. Going from "accused" to "acquitted" is skipping a step. I would also move that out of the athletic section and put it in the background section.
    O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jon Simmons noticed Parker... Who is Jon Simmons?
    talent agent added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...three sisters... → "three of his sisters" for clarity.
    O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In Pride, he had a smaller role, but was able to demonstrate his athletic physique in this movie about a swim team. Suggest something like "He had a smaller role in Pride, about an African American swim team, but one that allowed him to display his athletic physique." Although that bit about his physique isn't terribly encyclopedic in tone. Double-check the links for Pride so that they are pointing to "Pride (2007 film)". At least one of them doesn't. Same with "Felon". Point them to "Felon (film)".
    Those bad links were from a third party editor who added a filmography.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Denzel Washington served as director for the The Great Debaters and thus selected Parker for the role. "Denzel Washington directed The Great Debaters and selected Parker for the role of Henry Lowe." That sentence needs to be the first of the paragraph and the paragraph needs to be tightened overall. No need to repeat the name of the film four times.
    O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Parker plays a character with a bad-boy streak that is the love interest of Jurnee Smollett's character. "Parker's character is the love interest of Jurnee Smollett's character and has a bad-boy streak."
    O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove the word "thus" wherever it appears.
    O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Parker also performed on the soundtrack as a song performer in The Great Debaters. "Parker also recorded a song (or however many songs) for the film's soundtrack."
    I sort of phrased things vaguely because I do not know if he was a singer, rapper or instrumentalist and do not know how many songs he partook in.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. He aspires to provide scholarships to youth between the ages of 17 and 25. Move this sentence as it splits up the mention of Peace4Kids. The source also specifically mentions 100 Men of Escellence Initiative so why not include that?
    O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Reference section is correctly formatted and the article contains no original research. IMDB is not a reliable source. Movietome does not appear to be a reliable source because it can be edited by users. I'm a bit confused by reference 2. If I'm reading it correctly, the entire high school wrestling team was recognized as All-American. Does that mean that each individual team member was an All-American because of the team honor? Maybe there's another source out there that clarifies this? What prompted him to switch schools and when did he switch?
    I removed the imdb reference from Great Debators musical performance statement. I don't see the movietome reference. I think for place of birth, imdb is reasonably reliable. The sentence "Nate Parker achieved All American status by placing third" means he was an individual All-American. Usually in sports where ordinal place rankings are determined persons who finish above a certain rank at the national championships (say 6th or 8th) are described as All-American. I know they do this in Track & Field at the NCAA championships. A-A means he placed top 6 in track I believe. I don't know what the rank is for high school wrestling. Switching in high school seemed to be his mother's choice and I imagine switching in college had to do with his scholarship eligibility due to the legal case. Which are you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Movietome reference is current reference 7, which is sourcing how many sisters he has and that he read Joyce, Hughes, etc. for his role in TGD. Since you have another reference for the latter it can be removed from there and I guess the other is non-controversial enough that it's not a dealbreaker but if there's another source I would switch to it. I was referring to his changing colleges. It's a very abrupt transition in the article. I'm willing to bet you're right about the reason but is there anything that tells us why he transferred for sure? Otto4711 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link to the claim that had another ref. For the sisters, I left it. As far as the transfer goes, it is not something a guy is going to highlight in an interview, so we will have to wait until later in his career when bio sketches may be more detailed. I stumbled upon some other rankings stuff.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Article is focused on Parker but there are some gaps. What happened to his mother's husbands?
    I don't know where to find further information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article presents the subject without bias.
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    Article is stable and free from edit warring.
  4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The two images are appropriately tagged and relevant to the article. The second caption is a bit awkward and wordy. I had to read through it a couple of times before I got it. How about something like Parker at Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, the county's only early voting location, after the close of the last night of early voting on November 3, 2008?
    O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Sorry, I realize some of this stuff trends to the nit-picky. I am going to place the article on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance. Otto4711 (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried searching at Newsbank using the following search term "Nate Parker" actor Carolyn. I got no hits with info.

Content removal

[edit]

Frosty and Agarman, 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)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nate Parker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial efforts

[edit]

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 BrillLyle and to some extent Fmilla. 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)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Zaslav: 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)[reply]

Section reorder

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

False claim removed

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks all for your attention to this challenging entry. Maxxx12345 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)[reply]

Additional information - please add

[edit]

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)[reply]

Lede paragraphs

[edit]

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)[reply]

Not wanting to play a Gay is notable

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undue Weight

[edit]

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)[reply]

Trimmed this myself and it has held so far so will remove the GAR request. AIRcorn (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nate_Parker&oldid=1257918421"