Jump to content

Talk:Bill Simmons/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Personal Life

In the article, it is mentioned that he graduated in 1992 with a 3.04 GPA in Political Science. While Simmons has mentioned that he was a 'Poli Sci' major, and it is well known that he graduated from College of the Holy Cross in 1992, I don't remember him ever mentioning his GPA, either in his articles or his podcasts. Where, exactly, is this information coming from?? There are no citations to verify whether this really was his GPA. The Last Story (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Slanted??

This article is pretty one-sided IMO. And there are lot of things that are seemingly irrelevant and need citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theycallmemorty (talk • contribs) 16:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

July 2006 discussion

add Grady Sizemore and Jamal Abu Shamala to the Reggie Cleveland all-stars. He inducted them along with Nate Funk in his NCAA running diary on day 2

I have removed most of the content from the article because it was unsourced and speculative. Editors are welcome to add material that is written from a neutral point of view, is verifiable, and is supported by references. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you propose to deal with the fact that almost all of the information about Simmons is only available through ESPNinsider? Essentially everything that was in the article is true, but proper references aren't available to non-subscribers. Stilgar135 03:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm reverting the article until we can find proper sources, but we can't do HTTP links to material because it is in a paid archive. There are several people keeping an eye on this page for vandalism and also verifiable information; if you have problems with specific statements, please bring them up, and we can (hopefully) answer them. SGreenwell 19:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
let people edit the page - don't be a fascist
Seriously though, it's often the case that some facts in the article are misrepresented. As an example, the "Vice President of Common Sense" mentioned in the article is presented by you know-it-all editors as someone who can "veto any team move." By your description, this should include minor trades, free agent signings, draft choices, and other largely insignificant yet commonplace day-to-day personnel decisions. This is clearly not what Simmons is trying to get across. Would the VCPS care that the Red Sox optioned Javier Lopez to AAA and called up Kason Gabbard? Clearly not. In fact, if you cared to read the original article, he only mentions "big decisions" as lying within the jurisdiction of the VPCS:
"I’m becoming more and more convinced that every professional sports team needs to hire a Vice President of Common Sense, someone who cracks the inner circle of the decision-making process along with the GM, assistant GM, head scout, head coach, owner and whomever else. One catch: the VP of CS doesn’t attend meetings, scout prospects, watch any film or listen to any inside information or opinions; he lives the life of a common fan. They just bring him in when they’re ready to make a big decision, lay everything out and wait for his unbiased reaction."
This may seem like a minor point (and it is), but these things add up, and you don't let the common (and often more knowledgeable) folk correct things of these nature, you are seriously diminishing not only the integrity of Wikipedia, but also it fundamental purpose. I urge you to reconsider.
I'm befuddled. Obviously, I misremembered Simmons' description of the VP of Common Sense, so I'm glad that you were able to make it more accurate. I'm not sure where you're going from there. Since you haven't changed the article appropriately, it seems like you're more interested in bitching about not letting the "common folk" correct things than actually making Wikipedia better. The issue on the table is, how do we make a reliable article when the vast majority of the primary sources aren't available to the vast majority of readers. I (and, apparently SGreenwell) believe that a full deletion is a less desirable result than having fairly knowledgable, experienced editors work from memory. When we're wrong, it's a good thing to have others come in and correct us- that's the beauty of Wikipedia. But I really don't see how your class war analogy helps anything, or even where it's coming from. Stilgar135 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what class wars have to do with anything. My problem is, I fail to understand (a) why new or unregistered users are prevented from editing this page, and (b) why no mention of this is made on the page itself (eg - the person who blocked editing could have put up at the top of the page a "partially blocked" tag, or whatever the right terminology is). I for one was pretty confused when I tried to edit the page and couldn't find any "edit" markers - it's annoying that one has to browse the talk page for this kind of information.

My bad- I didn't realize that the page was blocked, either. A lot of people like to complain about what they see as elitism of Wikipedia, and I guess I automatically lumped you in with them; as always, I tried to be clever and metaphorical. Thus, "class wars". Anyway, I agree that protected pages should definitely have that fact posted on the front. I also don't think that this page is really a good candidate for protection- the problem isn't unregistered users vandalizing, it's that the information is so hard to verify. I guess all I can say is make good edits, become an "established user" and, if you see anything else in the article you think needs fixing before then, post it here. Stilgar135 16:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I fixed some of the replying earlier in this thread, to make it more clear who was responding to who. Second, I'm guessing the block is up because of some of the past edits to the page. I've generally been lenient on things that have been added (i.e. the Reggie Cleveland All-Star team) because we haven't really talked out consensus on this talk page. I think if we're now interested in chopping the article down, we should try to talk it out instead of just engaging in edit wars. Finally, please try to sign comments with the four tildes, even if you don't have an account. It makes the talk page easier to read. SGreenwell 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)



Note- Will someone include the semi- famous introduction of an US weekly fantasy league. The man single handedly created a way for women to enjoy fantasy leagues!!!


Simmons got his masters in political science from Holy Cross, not a degree in sports journalism. I'm positive of this, but I don't remember where I read it. He did however used to have a column in the college's paper. BallingOutFull 05:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Can anyone provide a picture of his wife? He mentions her enough times and now with her weekly rants (which sound JUST like you'd expect bill simmons as a girl to write), i'd like to verify you know, thats shes actually a real person.

He's mentioned her many times over the years, as has other people like Adam Carolla; Carolla talks about going out with his wife and Bill and Bill's wife at one point. I don't think there are any pictures of her online, at least there weren't when I was curious about the subject a few months ago. Seeing as there's no pictures of Bill currently on this page, it would be hard to justify a picture of his wife instead. SGreenwell 18:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Simmons has said that he's never going to put any family pictures on SGW. Still, a bit more information about his wife could certainly help the article. Stilgar135 20:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that is possible. Having followed The Sports Guy for several years, it's very obvious that Simmons is very, very guarded about his family. Most likely because of a fear of idiots taking shots at them, Simmons usually refuses to even say his wife and kids' names. Even now that the Sports Gal's name is known (I believe it was a guest on a podcast who let it slip), Simmons STILL refers to her only as The Sports Gal or, simply, 'my wife'. I doubt very much you will find any pictures any time soon of his wife and kids.The Last Story (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the page misrepresents the Ewing Theory, a theory which I love. The key aspect of the Ewing Theory is not that the team has unusual success (which is vague) when a superstar leaves, but instead that the team is more successful sans-superstar than it was with-superstar. Either because of injury or because of departure, the Knicks performed better without Ewing than they did with Ewing. Implicit in the "Ewing theory" is a concession that the superstar is, Yes, a superstar. But his presence inexplicably damages the team. I'm not a Wikipedia guy, and I have no idea what will happen if I paste a URL here for proof, but here's a column addressing the issue specifically: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1193711&type=package

I changed it based on your suggestion. Please note that the Knicks were never better without Ewing (look at the stats and records), which destroys the Theory. It should be named the Drew Bledsoe theory...but I still like Simmons.Ramsquire 21:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think he calls it the Ewing Theory because the one-time the Knicks made the finals in the past 15 years, Ewing was on the bench (Sprewell-Houston years). SGreenwell 21:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
They were in the Finals with Ewing in '94 (made it all the way to Game 7), and he played all but nine games in '99, the time you are talking about. The Knick's record in those nine games? 4-5! Plus, after going to the 2nd round of the playoffs every year once Riley took over, and four Eastern Conference finals, they haven't sniffed the second round since he left. I don't count the inspired effort one night in Milwaukee during the regular season (as Simmons and many Knicks fan did to back up this theory) as showing the Knicks would be a better team without Ewing. They never were, and they certainly haven't been since. Ramsquire 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The Ewing theory was born out of Patrick's days with Georgetown, not the Knicks. Also a key component of the theory is that the team was never very successful, despite the presence of said "Superstar". "Very successful" is not a term I'd use for Ewing's Knicks, especially considering what a phenom the man was supposed to be.:::
Hi, non-Wikipedia guy again. I think it is valid to question the legitimacy of the Ewing Theory. All of the ridiculous debate on the Ewing Theory page, for instance, demonstrates that labeling players as "Ewing Theory" eligible is a fool's errand. Maybe Ewing shouldn't even be considered, as you've pointed out. But, anyway, I think there should be one additional clause in the definition which you changed: "...increased success after the departure or temporary absence of a superstar." As you've indicated above, if a player is missing even for a short while, and the team succeeds, that players suddenly becomes potential "Ewing Theory" fodder. Also, just for fun, I want to say here that the only value of the Ewing Theory is entertainment value. Understanding the premise of the Ewing Theory allows my friends and me to argue at length about who is, and who isn't, a Ewing Theory guy.

The link for Howie Kendrick should be removed from the Reggie Cleveland All-Stars and replaced by one from someone considerably less black.

There should be a mention of "The Unintentional Comedy Scale" somewhere in the article. EthanE5 03:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Since "The Sports Guy" is essentially his nickname, shouldn't it be bolded (every other nickname on Wikipedia follows that format) - 192.187.4.162 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not (or at least it shouldn't be) just any nickname that's bolded. What should be bolded are phrases that would legitimately serve as alternate titles to the article. Basically, if it's bolded, then there really ought to be a page under that phrase in bold that redirects to the main page. In this case, though, "The Sports Guy" does indeed yield such a page that redirects here. So bolding is appropriate, and I have added it. Mwelch 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


- I think that Bill refers to Jimmy Kimmel as his cousin several times during his podcast for the week of October 19, 2007. I can't find any web reference for it so if someone call find a cite that would be awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rypie423 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Bill is talking to Jimmy Kimmel's cousin Sal. He also refers to him as "Cousin Sal". (I think that is how Jimmy does it on his show) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groth33 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Move Memes?

I was thinking about moving Memes to it's own page "Bill Simmons Memes". Right now this section takes up about half of his page and doesn't seem like it fits with a biography. Warhol13 14:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears needs to be added to the Tyson Zone section, as he mentioned that in today's piece. (EM)

She was already added earlier today. Bjewiki 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nate Funk needs to be added to the Reggie Cleveland All Stars, as per today's running diary

I think that the link to clay bennet is wrong. it should be this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Bennett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.251.48 (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

running diaries

Why is there no mention of running diaries?(Viewport 23:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

Independent sources

It'd be nice to have some independent sources, such as newspaper articles or what have you, as sources of information used for this article. As it is, its mostly based on original research and primary source material (such as his Page 2 article, other ESPN articles), whereas a decent Wikipedia article should be using sources published by third parties as its base of information (eg. not written by someone at ESPN). Stuff like this would be a good sources: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/chris_ballard/03/22/qa.simmons/index.html . Remember to use inline citations so people know where you get your information! Cheers! Wickethewok (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ODB...

The correct name for the rapper is Ol' Dirty Bastard, and NOT Old Dirty Bastard. Do not revert this correction. floydpink666 00:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Can someone please explain

What source #2 has to do with this Bill Simmons? It links to some article about a Boston teacher with the same name.

Ya that needs to be removed, the link has nothing to do with Bill Simmons.GWST11 (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's about his dad and mentions things about Bill Simmons. TNXMan 14:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mimes

Honestly the mimes section is unencyclopedic and should be remove. Its just a list of mimes a person thinks it's interesting from Simmons, it's sourced, but the sources doesn't show the significant of the mimes. He's my favorite ESPN writer as well but still Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first. Thanks Secret account 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not create a page with all those mimes? They are significant. Simmons is pretty much known for these Mimes. i dont understand why after YEARS of these mimes being up. One guys oppinion has to change everything. At least you could have put a discussion post up FIRST before you deleted everything! --Mgmets5 (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed all of the examples from the list of memes, as I can't really see a reason for them to be there. However, I've left a descriptions, as they are examples of his writing. If anyone disagrees, let's discuss here. TNXMan 21:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I think removing the long lists of names from the memes section is the right move. Simmons is well-known for his memes, but a couple examples of each is enough. Save the exhaustive lists for the inevitable SportsGuy Wiki. ObtuseAngle (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. I kinda took a hacksaw to the lists, but if someone wants to clean up a little, that would be great. Cheers! TNXMan 21:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been a reader for years and I agree that lists of who he has designated an "All-Star" are silly and unnecessary. I just protected the page, due to his most recent entry. Enigmamsg 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Troy O'Leary All Stars

Whoever Michael Agresti is, he does not have an Irish name & does not belong on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.181.221 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The entire Troy O'Leary All Stars section was removed and I think it should be brought back along with the rest of the memes. I think it should be a different article (all of them) with a link because i don't think there is a full list of all of them anywhere out there that can be added to as needed. I liked the way it was a few months ago with the list of "players" on all the "teams." Also, the quote about Patrick O'Bryant refers completely to the Troy O'Leary All Stars not the Reggie Cleveland All Stars and that should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.188.12 (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; it kind of crosses into trivia. Plus, this kind of content is difficult or impossible to source and therefore prone to inaccuracy. So the more obscure or fancrufty something is, the less it should be in the article, IMO. PorkHeart (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes

It seems to me like the following two paragraphs should be removed from this page, or at least, moved to a different part of the article. The fact that he held the record for longest podcast two years ago is hardly worth a mention on this page. I guess it could be moved to a different part of the article if the editors believe it is still notable. The fact that he announced his candidacy for the Minnesota T-Wolves GM and Milwaukee Bucs GM is also trivial and should be removed, or at least moved to a different part of the page.

He set the record for the longest chat on ESPN's Sportsnation on November 28, 2007, breaking Rob Neyer's previous record. He did the chat to support ESPN's fund raising efforts for the Jimmy V Foundation for cancer. Neyer has since re-broken the record on March 31, 2008 on the opening day of the baseball season. Matthew Berry currently holds the record of 13 hours and 12 minutes.

He also "officially" announced his candidacy for the position of Milwaukee Bucks general manager, for which he was not hired. In a similar spoof move, he announced his candidacy for the Minnesota Timberwolves general manager position in 2009. Again he was not hired.

Another problem is that these paragraphs are completely unsourced and should be removed immediately according to WIKI policy immediately. I understand the issue of some of the sources being only accessible to ESPN Insider subscribers, but if the info is borderline whether it should even be in the article or not, then it should just be removed completely.

This sentence needs to be fixed "He was also a bartender for a short time while before he established himself on the web."

The minutiea in this article needs to be removed. Items such as his two books should be a larger part of the article, and the fact that he took 10 weeks of to write one of his books is definitely not noteworthy.

None of this would bother me too much except for the fact that someone feels it necessary to block the page for editing. Please make changes to this page. By the way, this page needs a dramatic overhaul. If editors are unwilling to make necessary changes, please, at least, unlock the page for editing. Thank you Kgromann (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm an established user now, so I'm going to make some of the changes myself. Kgromann (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Given Bill Simmons's love of the show Jersey Shore (TV series), isn't it about time this was added to the list of his favourites references to TV shows under the "Style" section?

Please change

Simmons' writing is characterized by references to movies, television shows such as Lost, The Wire, The Sopranos, Beverly Hills 90210, Mad Men, The O.C. and Entourage, his "everyday Joe" sense of humor, and his bias for Boston-area sports teams.

to

Simmons' writing is characterized by references to movies, television shows such as Lost, The Wire, The Sopranos, Beverly Hills 90210, Mad Men, The O.C., Entourage, and Jersey Shore, his "everyday Joe" sense of humor, and his bias for Boston-area sports teams.

If you need a source, there's this podcast plus all the references he makes to the show in this column. --Domeheid (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay but let's cut 90210 for balance, to keep the list from getting bloated. -Jordgette (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done - by Jordgette Set Sail For The Seven Seas 352° 11' 45" NET 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jordgette! --Domeheid (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Another edit request

Non-user here. Just thought that bit of the article where it says Simmons said he won because of "the ineptidude of NBA analyst Kenny Smith", I think one should amend that to "the ineptitude of NBA analyst and former NBA player Kenny Smith", because it adds even more to the meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.171.184 (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

You mention Bill's son, but omit his funny nickname, the CEO. Seems like that should go in. Also, the Jerry Remy paragraph makes reference to his being a non-smoker, but in The Book of Basketball, he writes about how he smoked while writing the book.

Thanks, MisterSenorLoveDaddy Mistersenorlovedaddy (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill Simmons Request

Bill Simmons in his latest mailbag article mentioned that he would like it if we added that he has had a baby, two dogs, and now an internet router named after him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frodosco (talk • contribs) 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's probably too trivial to mention, considering the length of the article. TNXMan 20:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chadhallberg, 23 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In October 2010, Bill Simmons specifically asked that his Wikipedia page be updated to include the following: "Since 2001, when I started writing this column for ESPN, I've had the following things named after me: a baby, two dogs and an Internet router."

Citation: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnfl2010/101022_part1

Chadhallberg (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia articles are not for trivia. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Clearly this is not a random list, the usual standard for trivia. Find another objection; my current vote is add it. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Trivia isn't just random information. It's useless information which doesn't give any additional insight into the subject. Having a baby, two dogs, and an Internet router named after him does suggest that he's well-liked by his fans. Of course, if they didn't like him, they wouldn't be his fans.
At any rate, there's no independent, secondary source coverage of anything named after Bill Simmons. I doubt a page like List of things named after Bill Simmons would last very long here, either. Simmons can cough up $5 a month for hosting and start the Sports Guy Wiki if he wants. I say leave the info out. ObtuseAngle (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You're talking about the noun trivia, I'm talking about WP:TRIVIA. It's not a proper objection to inclusion in the article since the policy is about lists not individual facts incorporated into a paragraph of text. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding secondary sourcing, here are a few other facts currently in the article that I think it would be hard to find proper sourcing for: "[Simmons] is a former writer for ESPN The Magazine. Nicknamed The Sports Guy, formerly The Boston Sports Guy, Simmons gained the attention of ESPN with his web site, BostonSportsGuy.com which earned him a job offer in 2001. Since joining ESPN in 2001, in addition to writing for ESPN.com, he has also hosts his own podcast on ESPN.com titled The B.S. Report, appeared as a special contributor on the television series E:60, and serves as an executive producer of ESPN's documentary project, 30 for 30. He also has written two best-selling books and worked as a writer for Jimmy Kimmel Live! Simmons is known for his style of writing which is characterized by mixing sports knowledge and analysis, clever prose, pop culture references, his non-sports-related personal life, and for being written from the viewpoint of a passionate sports fan. Simmons also has created numerous internet memes, most notably the Ewing Theory and the Manning Face." Yes, this is pretty much the entirety of the first three pararaphs of the lede. I don't mean to be snarky but rather to offer evidence that sourcing is not a true standard for WP, but really more of a policy of convenience of supporting an editor's viewpoint. And the standard is not second source, it is "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Losing everything on WP that didn't meet that standard would make it the encyclopedia of newspaper-sourced info, rather than the beacon of collective wisdom that it is. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I say add it in. TforTwo214 (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} In October 2010, Bill Simmons specifically asked that his Wikipedia page be updated to include the following: "Since 2001, when I started writing this column for ESPN, I've had the following things named after me: a baby, two dogs and an Internet router."

Citation: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnfl2010/101022_part1

No. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Not done: -Atmoz (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I say add it. It's not trivia. It's verifiable information that adds interesting anecdotal detail and demonstrates, in an amusing way, his popularity as a sports columnist. Besides why do two or three people get the final say as to what is noteworthy and what is not? I see an edit history where a number of people have added and supported the addition and only a couple people saying no. Why do the naysayers get the only vote exactly?Jdlund (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bill Simmons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll review this in the next few days, once the one I'm currently reviewing is wrapped up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The first thing I noticed is that I think the article's overreferenced. I'm usually pretty stringent on refs, but this is overkill. For example, "William J. Simmons III[2] was born on September 25,[3] 1969,[4] to William Simmons[5][6] and Jan Corbo.[7]" That should need one reference at most, let alone six. Could I get a rationale for the immense referencing? If it's not that good I can do some trimming, though I'd prefer you do it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the above, here are the prose issues I found:

  • "Simmons was an only child[7] and grew up in Marlboro and Brookline, Massachusetts[2] before moving to Stamford, Connecticut[7] to live with his mother after his parents divorced at the age of 13.[2] His father, William Simmons, was a school administrator,[5][6] and his stepmother,[8] Molly Clark, is a doctor.[6]" I would swap these sentences around; flows better that way.
  • "He began getting email from people asking if he could put them on his mailing list." first, e-mails. second, confusing; do you mean others wanted Simmons on their mailing lists?
  • "The website quickly built up a national following since so many friends from high school and college all e-mailed it to each other.[7] In the winter of 2000, Simmons thought about quitting and going into real estate since there was little money in sportswriting but didn't." this could probably be written more encyclopedically.
  • There are some bits and pieces of making his bio sound slightly POV. For example, "In 2007, Simmons conceived the idea for the critically praised[26] 30 for 30," the critically praised part really isn't needed, since that's tangential to Simmons.
  • "His current contract with ESPN, which he signed in 2007, expires in 2010.[24] In May 2010, it was reported that Simmons and ESPN came to an agreement on a new contract, although no official announcement has been made on the terms.[37]" This can be modified; obviously, the 2007 contract part can be taken out.
  • There are some cite needed tags in the rooting interests section, which I'm not sure if that's even needed.
  • Going off on the referencing above, there are many sentences with 3-4 refs that only need one.

Due to the various concerns, as well as the article nominator having now edited in a couple months, I'm going to fail this as a GAN. It can be re-nommed when the issues are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Breaks of the Game

A couple of people have removed The Breaks of the Game quote thats in there now, I guess it might be a little long. Since its from a primary source I thought a quote was better. I was wondering if we could work up a better passage? I think the previous wording that "its one of his main influences" is understating things a little. I've never seen him rave about a sports book like he has that one (he calls it his favorite book ever written on sports), so I thought adding that quote was necessary. This source ([1]) is better than the NYT one because since you're stating his feelings an in depth primary source is better than a secondary one. The NYT article has just a short blurb which reiterates something he wrote anyway. Besides any source which lists what he considers a main influence on his writing will just be quoting him anyway. In that primary source he goes into detail about how that book affected his life, and how he considers it a template for good sports writing. Maybe something like "As a child Simmons read David Halberstam's book The Breaks of the Game which he became enamored with. He says that he reread the book countless times in his youth, and that he continues to read it periodically as he considers it a template for good sportswriting." AaronY (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote it to use both the secondary source and primary source because according to Wikipedia policy "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" and "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." So having both sources should work. Allwham (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Referencing?

There seems to be lots of praise for Simmons with his own books or web-articles used as sources!

" Simmons' writing in his columns is characterized by mixing sports knowledge,[14][22] erudite analysis,[22] clever prose,[22] comedy,[15][53] references to pop culture[15][14][23][54] including movies and television shows,[55] his non-sports-related personal life, his many fantasy sports teams,[23] video games,[23] and references to adult video.[25][49] His columns often mention trips to Las Vegas[56] or other gambling venues with his friends, including blackjack and sports gambling.[23][57]"

In those 2 sentences his own book is used as reference to support his: sporting knowledge, "erudite" analysis and clever prose. I don't want to start a flame war, but "clever prose", Bill Simmons?? He's hardly John Banville! and "erudite analysis"!! Really??? Don't get me wrong, his Book of Basketball is one of the better basketball books (and that's maybe an underestimation), but his style of engagement with the reader is of the "shock jock" variety. With facts and figures "bended" to fit his Celtics biased agenda (which I get is a running joke). Comedic? Subjectively perhaps. I would certainly propose that all claims and references about him and/or his book (and other work) referenced directly to him (or to his book) should be removed. Bullblade (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I should add, it's not just those two sentences. Throughout the article there are positive claims and achievements about Simmons and they are nearly all taken from his own work. One thing you can't accuse Simmons' of is being afraid to talk/write about himself, a lot! But I don't think they are suitable references when written about himself! Bullblade (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

In relation to the above, Wikipedia does state that "Self-published sources" and "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" are unreliable. Looking back through the history of this page, this issue has been brought up before, with edits done and then reverted due to people sourcing his own material. There is now such a mass of self-referenced material that it makes it very difficult to revert to any one stage or start to edit or remove parts. Suggestions? Bullblade (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

After discussion (seeking advice) in Wikipedia IRC room, removed the self-referenced claims of "clever prose", etc. Sources other than "The Book of Basketball" (or anything else written by Simmons) requried before re-adding claims or reverting. Bullblade (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bill Simmons. 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 06:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bill Simmons/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Block quote

i was the one who came up with the Diane Lane All-Stars. He originally had Rene Russo all-stars, but changed it to DLAS

Last edited at 17:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Bill Simmons. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Simmons. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Usage_in_first_sentence, "If a person has a well-known common hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name,[11] it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Tom Hopper which has just Thomas Edward Hopper. Also acceptable are formulations like "Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi, better known as Sandro Botticelli", when applicable." "Bill" is a common hypocorism for "William" to the point that it should not be presented as "William Simmons III, commonly known as Bill Simmons", but as simply "William Simmons III". I made this change and it has been reverted, hence the talk page discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That MOS section clearly states that "Bill" should not appear as "William 'Bill' Simmons III", so I agree with removing "Bill" from the full name, but you quote the acceptable and common formulation that is present in the article today, "William John Simmons III, commonly known as Bill Simmons". People looking for an article about Bill Simmons should see the most common formulation of his name in the lead sentence. That's just good writing. (I would also be OK with the precise formulation used in the MOS example, "... better known as Bill Simmons.") – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Muboshgu, your latest edit to remove the predominant form of this person's name was disruptive. If you have a problem with MOS, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, and feel free to ping me there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: My edit was not disruptive. I hadn't seen the reply of two weeks ago. The example given at WP:QUOTENAME for the "commonly known as" is "Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi, known as Sandro Botticelli". Bill / William is not at all like this. QUOTENAME gives the example of "Thomas Edward Hopper" for "Tom Harper", not "Thomas Edward Hopper, commonly known as Tom Hopper", so MOS supports not including it at all on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that "Bill" as a nickname for "William" is an obvious hypocorism for non-English-speakers. I think this situation is more analogous to Pepe Aguilar: "Pepe" is a common nickname for "Jose" in the Spanish language, but English speakers would not be expected to know that. I guess it comes down to two things for me in this particular case: (1) Bill is not an obvious nickname for William, and (2) reliable sources always refer to this person as "Bill Simmons", so "Bill Simmons" should appear in bold in the first sentence. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
(1) Bill / William is one of the examples given at Hypocorism#English. (2) Reliable sources are why the page is titled "Bill Simmons" instead of "William Simmons III", but that should not be listed in the first sentence based on WP:QUOTENAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bill Simmons. 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) 09:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Simmons. 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) 00:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Isiah Thomas and Red Sox Nation presidency

These subsections have been under "controversy" forever but I don't think they're particularly controversial or important in Simmons' overall career, certainly I never see them discussed in modern mentions of Simmons. They just amount to people not really getting a joke. They were probably added when they happened and nobody really felt like removing them. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Simmons/Archive_1&oldid=1077485358"