Talk:Rick Reilly

2005

I found a really good biography but am not familiar with the copyright implications; it is on SI's website. [1] (On the left) Is it ok to copy and paste this (more or less) with a note on where it was from? Thanks. Zellin 04:46, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I thought he wrote a very heartfelt tribute to his wife for being with him through his tough schedule a few years ago. Then recently, I thought he wrote an article and mentioned his girlfriend. What's his marital status? Doesn't he have kids? Editingfiend 07:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations in Article (Nothing But Nets)

I want to bring up the issue about citation within the article, specifically regarding nothing but nets campaign. It seems that there is a website that is linked as http://www.nothingbutnets.net/about-the-campaign/about-rick.html that seems to cover all of the information that needs citation within this article. I figure that the actual foundation is a reliable source. I think it should be updated and cited. Oliverory (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits brought to WP:BLPN

Due to the nature of the very slow but ongoing edit war (almost a year now -since I've been aware of it anyway) I've brought the latest edits to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (thread link). The latest disputed edit is here. I disagree with the non-neutral presentation of the material and also think that it should be removed in its entirety, due to WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Note that this has apparently been ongoing since 2005. BuddingJournalist 06:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

BLPN thread (archived). For future use. R. Baley (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

This one might be controversial, but I've semi-protected the article for two weeks. Given the large number of editors who have agreed that the disputed material violates BLP and given that the IP has made no attempt to engage in discussion on the subject, I'm comfortable regarding these BLP violations as vandalism rather than as a content dispute (in which case semi-protection would obviously be inappropriate). Given that the material is being inserted from a number of different IPs, semi-protection seems like a better route than blocking. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You people kill me. The article that I added is from a legitimate news site and doesn't show any POV. There does not need to be a 'consenus' just b/c you don't want anything bad about this obviously flawed 'writer' to be a part of his article. This isn't an opinion article - it is reported as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanninglamp (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're selecting references for the purpose of pushing your own viewpoint, and that's against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

what view point? it's a news article? it's obvious you have a biased view point of this so-called writer and obviously a limited amount of intelligence/understanding of what a legitimate news sourse or article is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanninglamp (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your viewpoint about "this obviously flawed 'writer'". Every human being is "flawed". Using even a "legitimate" news source for the purpose of POV-pushing, as you're trying to do, is against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

it's your view point that he's above controversy or criticism. so whose wrong? obviously you! leave the legitimate article. your the one with biased opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanninglamp (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't even worth arguing about. One single-topic editor edit warring to insert his POV into this article isn't going to stand on a BLP page. Dayewalker (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation

I have reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP compliant version

I've cleaned up one of the problematic pieces into a version that is I think BLP compliant. Could someone take a look and give an opinion? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

teeth

If I may, I'd like to start up the "teeth" discussion by quoting the comment that Henry O'Dell left on my page after removing the language:

• • • My mistake, nothing was on the talk page about this issue before, I was looking at a different issue. However, Dayewalker brought up "Rmv, humorous personal analysis of his style from a dental perspective is undue, and unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Please discuss on talk page and try and gain consensus." when removing the teeth bit before. Despite this, I think that the bit should be added back, unless you agree with Dayewalker's assessment. Sorry for any trouble that I caused.--Henry talk 17:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)}}

I agree; the bit should be added back. Daye Walker, in my mind, would be correct that the material were "unsuitable for an encyclopedia", but she is not correct that the "teeth" section is "humorous personal analysis of his style from a dental perspective." That phrase would describe an analysis of Mr. Reilly's own teeth, wherein the author attempted to use Mr. Reilly's teeth to describe Mr. Reilly's writing. The disputed article text does not do that. Rather, I would call it "a citation to literary analysis of his style from a critical perspective." Why? Because we're not talking about Mr. Reilly's teeth (which would be an illegitimate topic), but rather Mr. Reilly's literary tic of mentioning teeth, which is legitimate because Mr. Reilly is notable as a writer. Authors have styles. It's common and acceptable that, when people write often, they start to develop a distinct way of writing. Some examples off the top of my head: Douglas Adams constantly interjects his own narration to point out plot holes; Woody Allen plays the same character in every one of his movies; the number 47 is an in-joke among every writer who likes Star Trek; and William Faulkner has enough tics to fill a forest. Rick Reilly? He writes humorous lines about teeth. No, it's not the highest form of art, but hey, he's trying to write sports columns, not Absalom, Absalom. It's part of how the world knows him though, so it belongs in the article. --M@rēino 18:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In determining whether or not I support the inclusion of this paragraph, I'm wondering to what extent Reilly's writing has been the subject of comment from pundits. If this teeth business is just one such comment among many, then it's clearly undue weight to include it (especially in such a prominent form). Can somebody enlighten me on this point? Steve Smith (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This still seems undue to me, although I certainly support this discussion in efforts to find consensus. Other than this slate article, are there any other reliable secondary sources that discuss Reilly's style in terms of his habit of mentioning teeth? Dayewalker (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Similar columns

Bugs is right, without sources, this section doesn't need to be discussed in this matter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reilly has plagiarized himself with his December 2nd column for espn.com. He wrote a very similar article in November of 2007 for Sports Illustrated and I believe this should be included in the controversies sections. Here are some of the similarities: 2007: When I was a sophomore in college, working on the town newspaper, a professor took me aside and said, "You need to get out of sports. You're better than sports." 2009: When I was a college sophomore and just starting to write for the Boulder sports section, my journalism professor edged me aside, looked me in the eye and said, "You're better than sports." 2007: There's no back door in. If you're Aaron Spelling's daughter and you want to act, you get to act. If you're a Trump, you get to build. But nobody in sports makes it onto the field because he caught a lucky sperm. Jose and Ozzie Canseco were identical twins. Jose played 1,887 major league games. Ozzie played 24. And sports doesn't care how you did last month, either. If you're Derek Jeter and you stop hitting, it doesn't matter how many Visa commercials you've done, you're toast. And yet Flavor Flav still puts out CDs. 2009: Sports is real. It can't be faked. If you're Henry Fonda's son and you want to act, you get to act. If you're Chelsea Clinton and want to govern, you get to govern. But just because you're Nolan Ryan's son doesn't mean you get to pitch in the Show. Money, family, looks mean diddly in sports. If Tom Brady suddenly can't throw the 30-yard out, he's benched, dimple or no dimple. 2007:Sports is a way in. One of the best e-mails I ever got was from a 25-year-old: "Thanks for writing what you did about the Red Sox. It's the first time I've been able to talk to my dad in five years." 2009: Sports is Oprah for guys. I knew a Boston dad and son who hadn't spoken in five years. Some disagreement that just grew too big to see around. But when the Red Sox won it all in 2004, the son came home. They hugged and cried and laughed, and if you think it was about baseball, you don't know men. 2007: Sports isn't an escape from life-it's woven into the fabric of it. 2009: Sports is woven deeper into American life than you know. 2007: It's black and white, there's no gray area. Every night there's a winner and there's a loser and nothing in between. There's no waiting to see the third-quarter fiscal report. It's open to zero interpretation. I've never been to a game yet where, at the end, the ref announced, "O.K., Cleveland won 14—13, but the Cleveland coach was blocking his deep-seated childhood need for validation. So, actually, Buffalo is the winner." There's a score and it's fair and clean and easy to understand. Except for figure skating, of course. 2009: Sports has no gray areas. It's black or white, win or lose, hero or goat. Nobody has to form a committee to figure it out. Not true in dance or art. Who was better, head to head, Matisse or Monet? If it were sports, we'd know. (Matisse, 13-8.) 2007: So bite me, professor. Thirty years later, I still don't think I'm better than sports. In fact it's been the other way around the whole time. 2009: So here's to you, professor. I'm glad to know I'm not better than sports. But you did show me I'm better than one thing: advice from professors. The 2007 article can be found in its entirety here: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1108381/1/index.htm The 2009 article can be found in its entirety here: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=reilly_rick&id=4701710 hollywoodhookHollywoodhook (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Unless you can find valid sources making that assertion, it doesn't belong. It's original research on your part. Also, since he wrote it himself both times, it's not plagiarism anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC) http://deadspin.com/5417342/rick-reilly-gives-himself-another-tongue+bath Hollywoodhook (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Also, Sports Illustrated owns the copyright to his 2007 article; he works for ESPN now and therefore can plagiarize himself if he doesn't own the rights to his past works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywoodhook (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I doubt that's a valid source, and how do you know who owns what rights to what? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Unless there's a reliable secondary source calling it "plagarism," there's no notability there. Entertainers rerun certain bits and lines all the time. Dayewalker (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC) And barring that, the mere presence of a plagiarism accusation on this talk page is likely a BLP violation, hence this entire section should be deleted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

fix "Nothing But Netss" spelling instances

thanks 76.113.190.192 (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with Woody Paige

I think this should be added to the article: (Woody Paige speaking in an email) "I remember assisting a young man who grew up in Colorado and wanted to be a sports writer. I was instrumental in him getting his first major job with The Denver Post, and was responsible for him covering his first World Series. When Rick Reilly was selected national sports writer of the year, he asked me to introduce him. He has become one of the best, best-known and highest-paid sports writers and commentators in the history of newspapers, magazines and sports TV, and I'm very happy I was able to be a smart part of that process. "

Source: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/ot-woody-paige-e-mail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.196.145 (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not allowed as sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It was an email... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.196.145 (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

So we can't use it then? It was an actual email from Paige that was posted on a blog. Does it matter where it was posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.196.145 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

...........? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.196.145 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously complimentary, but with blogs and e-mails you run into both reliability and copyright issues. However, there could be other views on this. Maybe take this question to the projects listed at the top of this page, and see what a broader audience thinks about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs that the source (some guy with a blog who says he got an email from Paige) is pretty dicey. Wikipedia's policy states that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and I'm not sure that this blog fits that bill. That's not to say that blogs cannot be reliable sources, but there needs to be a bit more analysis. If I were you I would attempt to find a more reliable source before I added this tidbit to the article, particularly since it relates to a living person. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing But Nets Fix

would like to fix "In 2006, Reilly wrote a column in Sports Illustrated about program dedicated to" to "In 2006, Reilly wrote a column in Sports Illustrated about a program dedicated to"...

Done; thank you for spotting that. David1217 ^{What I've done} 21:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection Level

This article has been edited twice in the last year and six times in 2 years. It doesn't seem that it should be fully protected with such small traffic and very few attacks lately. Can someone change this? 76.106.175.157 (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it is only semi-protected, but same argument. 76.106.175.157 (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong

The page should have a section on Reilly's longtime defense of Lance Armstrong, how he stood by him even when it was very clear that Armstrong had cheated and lied, and how he then ultimately blamed Armstrong for his failure to recognize Armstrong's lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.124.201.170 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's Reilly's own take on all this.[2] Not worth a section, but possibly worth a sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Reilly pretty badly misquoted his own father in law on the name of the "Redskins"

Include? [3] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's discuss

IP editor. Let's discuss the inclusion of the sexual assault incident here. Awaiting your response. I don't think it needs to be in the article as it presents possible WP:LIBEL issues. Tutelary (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think those edits were unacceptable, not in good faith, and certainly deserved to be reverted. mikeman67 (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a factual article presented in an unbiased way. I definitely think it should be reposted. Interesting story about the writer's background and family life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.200.66 (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to be synthesized from the original source. The text that you attempted to add was Despite being highly critical of the recruiting and sexual assault scandal at his alma mater, the University of Colorado, Reilly himself has been accused of not being able to supervise his own teenage daughter while an alleged sexual assault and underage drinking took place in his own home. Despite this text, I can't read on the source anywhere of him being 'accused' of not being able to supervise. All the article says is just a mild phrase about how he wasn't at home when his daughter was allegedly raped. After a good faith Google search, I also cannot find another article about this incident. Riding on this, and the fact that this article is from 2004, I opt to not include. Tutelary (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this content (at least the verbiage that was added by the IP editor) appears to be an attempt to defame, particularly in light of the age of the incident. In accordance with the stated policies regarding biographies of living persons in particular, this type of assertion would need to be much more strongly sourced. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's not discuss

This is a resurgence of an extremely old vandalism campaign (e.g. [4]), and should be dealt with through blocks and page protections, as appropriate. Steve Smith (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal

This is what is listed under "Personal".... ″Reilly married the former Cynthia Puchniarz, four years younger, in October 2008. From 1983 until 2003, he was married to the former Linda Campbell of Boulder, Colorado. Together they had three children whom Reilly writes about often.

Reilly appeared in a Miller Lite commercial with Rebecca Romijn.[13]″

This is one of the worst paragraphs I have ever seen. First off who is the "former" Cynthia Puchinarz? also the run on with "four years younger" in 2008. Then from 1983-2003 he was married to the "former" again..... This needs an editor and also his first wife should be listed first. Also is Rick being in a commercial really personal, and if you look at Rebecca's "Personal Life" it is well written, and nothing about being in a commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.29.242 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rick Reilly. 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/20100426143750/http://www.nssafame.com/General/15266 to http://www.nssafame.com/General/15266

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rick Reilly. 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/20101108094329/http://www.denverpressclub.org/damon-runyon-award to http://www.denverpressclub.org/damon-runyon-award

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) 18:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Rick Reilly does not work for ESPN.

His Monday Night Countdown job was taken by Michelle Beisner-Buck http://thebiglead.com/2016/09/06/michelle-beisner-buck-replacing-rick-reilly-on-espns-monday-night-countdown/

He wrote this in 2016 for S.I.: https://www.si.com/nba/2016/03/01/golden-state-warriors-stephen-curry-draymond-green-klay-thompson

The Dan Le Batard Show confirmed Reilly is no longer employed by ESPN at the end of the show on January 4, 2017. https://podfanatic.com/podcast/the-dan-lebatard-show-with-stugotz/episode/hour-3-1-4-17-5

207.255.197.33 (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)