Talk:Brett Sutton

Untitled
I have added the reference and deleted the reference box.--NikolaT (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
"With a very extensive background in coaching, he has developed what some athletes refer to as a sixth sense. He has an uncanny ability to see the very potential that any athlete that walks through the door might have, and then exploits that talent. His work is nothing short of magical according to the athletes that have worked with him." Ever so slightly over the top perhaps? Mathmo Talk 04:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brett Sutton. 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/20120329003843/http://www.triathletes.com.au/triathletes-articles/1999/5/3/sutton-blown-out-of-water-as-world-boss-warns-off-triathletes/ to http://www.triathletes.com.au/triathletes-articles/1999/5/3/sutton-blown-out-of-water-as-world-boss-warns-off-triathletes/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213233740/http://outsideonline.com:80/outside/bodywork/200810/brett-sutton-triathlon-coach-1.html to http://outsideonline.com/outside/bodywork/200810/brett-sutton-triathlon-coach-1.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) 21:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Background
Before 2011, this article was a POV battleground between editors outraged at Sutton's sex offences, and others who thought he was the best coach ever (I'm simplifying here, for clarity). The result was a long series of time-wasting edits, and zero improvement in the article. The article was nominated for deletion in 2011. If deletion criteria were based only on article quality, it would have thoroughly deserved to be deleted. But deletion is based on notability, not quality, and bad quality can be fixed.

So I completely rewrote the article from scratch, spending a great deal of time and effort to ensure that it is accurate and taking extreme care to ensure NPOV, especially so given that child sex offences can arouse strong emotions. I'm happy to say that my efforts put an end to the time-wasting, as no-one has challenged the NPOV balance in six years. If anything, I think my version errs slightly on the side of over-emphasizing the sex offences.

The fact that no-one has challenged it in such a long time indicates that I probably got the NPOV balance about right.

New POV push
Recently, a new IPv6 editor (who geolocates to Hendon, VA in the United States - or possibly New York City - but somehow is editing at 4am Eastern Time?) has appeared, and has begun a strong anti-Sutton POV push. Judging by his or her editing record, this editor appears to be on a crusade against child sex offenders. This is worrying, as I am anxious to prevent the article deteriorating back towards its previous appalling quality.

Required work
In my view the NPOV question was put to bed six years ago, and doesn't require any further work, except possibly for some minor tweaks. The real problem is that no substantive work has been done on this article in 6 years. In that time, Sutton has:
 * left TeamTBB, which he co-founded, and in which he owned a half-share
 * moved towards more involvement in charity work
 * set up a new coaching organisation, trisutto.com
 * produced more Olympic and World champions, notably Daniela Ryf (double Ironman World Champion) and Nicola Spirig (Olympic gold and silver medallist)
 * probably some other interesting stuff

All this needs to be investigated, sourced and summarized in the article.

Problems with the IPv6 edits
In general, they are basically unnecessary and unhelpful, apart from some useful minor tweaks (as described above).

More specifically:
 * I have again removed the "by whom" tag as unnecessary, because all the following quotes are fully cited; in other words the cites tell you who said or wrote those quotations. The IPv6's edit summary reads, in part: "This is, obviously, pertinent to whether we should even include the sentence", seeming to indicate a strong desire to remove anything favourable to Sutton from the article. No it isn't "obvious": Sutton has continued to produce more World Champions and Olympic medallists; if anything the sentence should be strengthened (but I won't, in order to avoid excessive length).
 * I have again reverted the phrase "He has expressed [views on training methods]". This is silly, as it adds no useful content or meaning to the article. The previous version ("He is known for his forthright views on training methods") is summarizing the body of the article, as the lead is meant to do.Again, we have another silly edit summary: "there is no evidence that he "is known for" these; and the sentence fails to indicate "by whom"". No, his views are expressed at length in the "Views" and "Triathlon coaching" sections, which the lead is correctly summarizing. He has upset a lot of people in the triathlon world by being so blunt (although he seems to have become milder in recent years). No-one familiar with the triathlon world would challenge this.
 * I've removed the bit about Sutton's marriage ending in divorce from the article body. It's still in the lead, fully cited. Yes the lead should summarize the article, so something about this should indeed be in the article body, but it doesn't easily fit into any section of the present article body. The best solution will be to wait until the article is expanded to include Sutton's post-2011 activities, which include changing his residence.
 * I've completely reverted this edit, which was tagged by the edit filter as "possible BLP issue or vandalism". It added a bare URL for a citation, a sure sign of declining article quality. But more seriously, the points it adds are already covered by other sources, or are easily deducible therefrom. It's a blatant attempt to heap more odium on top of Sutton's head, and there is already more than enough in the article on the sex offences.

--NSH001 (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)