|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 POV
- 2 Tyra Banks
- 3 Cover Jinx
- 4 Sports photography
- 5 the title of the page
- 6 Deleting "Criticism"
- 7 Swimsuit Issue templates at WP:DRV
- 8 Swimsuit Issue templates
- 9 Mission Statement
- 10 100-foot sculpture of two basketball players?
- 11 Innovations
- 12 Broken Table
- 13 Sportsman of the Century
- 14 Question re: circulation statement
- 15 Staff unireferenced
There seem to be major POV problems in this article. Half of the article is devoted to bashing the magazine as it exists today.--188.8.131.52 03:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It seems this comment would apply only to the "Creative decline" subsection, and every POV there is qualified (e.g., "seemed to some," etc.) and attributed, but if you can improve it, have a go!
- Rdikeman 14:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
I am taking out this sentence "They do not focus much on women's sport, only men's" from the "Innovation" section. As a single sentence, it does not make any sense in that section. If there is source material for this claim it should be make into a more cohesive criticism. Johntex 21:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agree with the above statement about POV. To have a section entitled "creative decline" implies that it is a given and has absolutely happened, rather than something like "controversy over creative decline" that would place the "creative decline" in doubt and be more NPOV. 184.108.40.206 21:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- So tagged. Quadzilla99 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me when was the first time Tyra Banks was in sports illustrated?
The first time that Tyra Banks was in Sports Illustrated was in 1993. She was on the cover for the first time in 1996. I believe that she was the first African American on the cover of the SI Swimsuit Issue. Maple Leaf 14:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"The Dreaded SI Cover Jinx" has become as much an institution, however imaginary it might be, as the Swimsuit Issue. If the Swimsuit Issue (which, I just realized, also has the initials SI) has its own separate page (and why not?) then the DSICJ should as well. That way, as many examples of it as can be thought of can be posted without making the original SI page too long.
- I agree that it could be split out into a separate article, another jinx was added to the list today. It could have separate sections with individual deaths and team losses. The article would need to point out that during weekly coverage of sports, it is likely that one or more teams may suffer losses and bad things may happen. A careful study would show that an appearance on the cover of Sports Illustrated is actually a blessing and reward, not a curse and a jinx. And you need to be essentially good and lucky to appear there in the first place. For example, UCLA is noted as having 105 appearances. Bill Walton appeared 5 times and John Wooden once during UCLA's 88 game basketball winning streak. Group29 13:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed my addition of Charles Thompson and the Sooners was removed because: "rv previous - three months after his team (not he) was on the cover, he was "jinxed" into breaking the law? Sorry, no." My response to the apparent time problem is thus: SI itself cited the cover jinx with Laurence Rochon Owen who died a full year after her appearence; here both the Sooners and Thompson were "victims" a year later; both Switzer and Thompson had not changed jobs in that time. As for the fact that the person did a criminal act, the jinx is about bad things happening. If Thompson is problematic, then point can certainly be made for the Sooners. --Bobak 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- The time lapse is the least of the problems with this case (and my understanding is -- from this article and other sources -- that Laurence Owen died two days after the date of her cover; please provide a source to the contrary if you disagree). I believe the common definition of a "jinx" is all about bad luck; in other words, things beyond one's control. Committing a crime is not the result of bad luck! And if you are trying now to switch the "victim" to the Oklahoma football program, you're not going to make much more sense claiming that their choice of recruits is the result of bad luck! =:-D
- I am not going to re-remove the section I disputed; I believe this article is active enough to allow others to decide.
- Rdikeman 12:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
We might want to consider rewriting that part about the Yankees in a few months, if they fail to win a championship this year, they will be the highest salaried baseball team that hasn't won a championship this century (Half a decade).
It seems that their sports photography isnt emphasized enough in this article. I think a subhead called "photography" or "sports photography" should be added, with the photography info already in the article moved to it, and of course expounded upon. Today they are the leaders in sports photography, setting up two to four DOZEN remote cameras at events like the NCAA final four. Keep in mind I'm a sports photography enthusiast myself and might be biased, hense why I wanna discuss this before doing it. Of course, this would be a good place in the article for some of their more famous photos. I am new to Wiki, I wonder if putting a famous SI photograph in the article would be against the copyright policy? Dtemp 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
the title of the page
i think th i looks too much like an l but thats ust my opinion.i think we shouldmove it so we can tell its an iI will marry gollum one day 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Not that I think SI is above criticism, but this:
*SI has been criticised for not putting Baseball on the cover enough, even during the World Series and playoffs. It was even once revealed to WFAN broadcaster Chris Russo that they cant stand baseball.
is a combination of weasel words and unsourced statements (not to mention appearing to be original research). If anyone can justify this with documentation, please feel free to put back in. Until then, it doesn't belong in the article. --Chancemichaels 15:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
Anybody who passionatly listens to Mike and the Mad Dog knows that Russo found out that SI hates baseball.
I have attempted to refine the yearly Swimsuit Issue templates and put them up for discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_10#User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/SISwimsuit. Please come comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Swimsuit Issue templates
100-foot sculpture of two basketball players?
If anyone is familiar with older circa 1970s (or earlier) SI covers there's a 100-statue (Molecule Man (sculpture)) of two American basketball players on the Spree River, Berlin, that are based on an SI cover. See full story here:
As per WP:TRIVIA, is the "Innovations" section a good fit? It seems like this could easily be summed up in paragraph form, but does potentially fit the scope of a "allowed" list, having a narrow scope, as per WP:TRIVIA. j.reed (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The "Most covers by athlete, 1954-2011" table under the "Cover History" section seems to be broken. "Tiger Woods" and "24" seem to be out of place. As I am not very good with tables, could someone fix this? Thanks, David1217 (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Sportsman of the Century
Pretty sure this is vandalism, but am bringing it here for verification: "Nominations for the Sportsman of the Century became contentious as the magazine moved into the 21C. They again asked readers for nominations but included "local sports legends". The December 2011 issue became their biggest selling in many countries with some notable nominations ranging from running legend, Johnny "tonsils" McLoughlin from the Dead Mans Cove Runners and Chris "Chicken Wing" Judd from the Carlton Football Club, Melbourne. The magazine sold out across the English speaking world and in Maldovia and Equatorial Guinea was restricted to subscribers only." --Khajidha (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Question re: circulation statement
This sentence is at the end of the "Regular segments" section:
"Nevertheless, Sports Illustrated remains the predominant sports publication in print journalism with a consistent weekly circulation topping 8 million per issue."
Is this number correct? Other sections of this article (plus the source  cited) refer to the magazine's circulation as between 3 and 3.5 million weekly.
The article has a huge problem related to magazine's staff. Actually two:
- The staff list is unreferenced, which presents troubles for verification; E.g., today an IP added a name. was it a joke or for real. Anyway, I verified and added a ref.
- The staff changes in time. Journal's website may keep track of its current staff, but I am not at all sure they keep it in sync with wikipedia. Therefore IMO this should be done as follows:
- There should be an ext link to the current staff at the SI website
- There should be a section "Staff" (not only "Writers" and "Photographers"). For major managerial positions the names must be supplied with time period (we must respect not only current boss, but past ones as well). All names must be supplied with references, just like it is done in List of Sports Illustrated writers.
-M.Altenmann >t 00:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)