Talk:Trevor Brazile

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.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group.

Rodeo (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rodeo, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.RodeoWikipedia:WikiProject RodeoTemplate:WikiProject RodeoRodeo articles

IMPROVING biography lede style

as per user:Montanabw

i am starting a discussion about the very controversial move to include an indication of the subject's gender in the opening sentence of a biography article.

i feel that this is a clear & obvious IMPROVEMENT in the opening of biographical articles; as the present "system" amount to having to hunt for the nearest pronoun-referring-to-the-subject, which may or may not even be in the introductory section.

this is not a satisfactory approach, & the fact that we have been "doing things this way" does not make it so.

"Who's Who", which is one of the FOREMOST english-language biographical publications, utilizes a format which specifies gender (& parentage) in the opening line.

i believe that "classic" printed encylopedia britannica did likewise; i am unable to check their subscriber-access online version, & their "free" online version is a wretched "preview/teaser".

tangentially, the german wikipedia (wp/de) has also adopted a superior date-format for birth & death; one which clearly indicates the significance of the dates shown.

a point which is less-then-clear on wp/en; particularly when the subject-person is an "officeholder" of some sort...

but i digress.

the MOS does not require that we permanently "lock in" an inferior format, & in this case the improvement is clear & obvious.

Lx 121 (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.: i don't think much of users who "disappear" criticisms (& not archived) from their talk page asap (within 24 hours, with NO response to the comment), & leave up "praise" from years ago. cheers. Lx 121 (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article would benefit from an infobox if you'd like to add one. The primary thing I was reverting was your insistence on adding the word "male" to the lead, which is not needed, poor style, and frankly, would mean we upgrade millions of articles to do so consistently, hence is a MOS issue, not one for this page. I am not going to bother engaging with you further on this page about this issue because you are being absurd to raise it as a point here. As for the rest, I can do whatever I wish on my user talk page and I have very clear notice that I reserve the right to do so. And if you are confused, your material was summarily dumped because I do not bother to deal with people who have edit summaries like this. Take the issue elsewhere, and when you win, come back here and let me know. Montanabw^(talk) 23:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

change starts where it starts; the mos is not a chain around our neck, & it does not bind us to use inferior formats. it also doesn't dictate a standardized format for biographical intro data.

"would mean we upgrade millions of articles to do so consistently" -- this fails as an arguement for why things should not change; "it's too hard, so don't improve it" is a poor reason to base decisions on, especially @ wikipedia.

i'm sorry that yoiu don't like my edit comments; i don't like your talk page archive edits. it only serves to demonstrate the UNRELIABILITY of user archives as compared to page histories.

"Take the issue elsewhere, and when you win, come back here and let me know" -- as per WP, you don't "own" this article, it's not your private territory, & camping out on it does not give you "squatter's rights"

respectfully, Lx 121 (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the mirror, my friend. And don't lecture me about MOS when you can't be troubled to capitalize. I'm not going to engage with you on this issue. Edit war and I will report you. Montanabw^(talk) 19:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i'm glad to see you are "so willing" to dialogue.

getting your friend to join on your side was a nice touch, but wp:canvassing is not a real third opinion.

if you can't be bothered to defend your position in reasoned debate, then you report me, i report you, let god sort it out.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Nikkimaria:, we're being accused of tag-teaming and canvassing! Quick, call out the cabal! Someone is on to our conspiracy! LOL! Montanabw ^(talk) 18:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Trevor Brazile.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]