Talk:Drew Rosenhaus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to Chapter 2 of A SHARK NEVER SLEEPS, Drew Rosenhaus was born in 1966 in South Orange, New Jersey.

Willis McGahee[edit]

I had to edit the part of the article where it said that Willis McGahee is one of the most successful current running backs. That line was far too generous to willis mcgahee. I changed it to one of the most promising young running backs.

--Henrybaker 22:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: 

 He was the basis for the character "Bob Sugar" in the popular 1996 movie Jerry Maguire.[1]

The web site cites to Rosenhaus' autobiography. Shouldn't we obtain a better source, rather than relying on Rosenhaus himself as the source of this information? I have heard this little bit of trivia before, but I'm not sure if it's Rosenhaus who originated this or if it came from the writer of the script. --Devilyouknow 17:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Owens is an extraordinary player. Owens is incredibly immature. He sees himself more than a excellent athlete. He sees himself as a god. It's not surprising that Michael Irving is his friend. He has the same self opinion. When caught in a hotel room with 2 hookers by the local police, Irving's defense was "do you know who I am". Or put in another way, I am not accountable to the laws and expectations of the ordinary man. 70.242.220.20 15:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Saddened by it all[reply]

User:Princess ofCloutierland[edit]

Your repeated insertion of the paragraph about DR refusing to participate in a small radio station interview because of his alleged opposition to seal hunting does not belong in this article for numerous reasons. One, it is not cited and quite possibly untrue. I could find nothing on it. Two, even if it is true, it is not an encylopedic fact worthy of inclusion. This person's notability is not as a save the seals activist, but as a professional football agent. Unless his activism was a central part of his life or career, it's an incredibly trivial entry.

Finally and most importantly, wikipedia has a policy that prohibits reverting edits more than three times. You have inserted it 12 times. Also, you have made no other edits to any other article, or to even this one, and I suspected your entry to be borderline vandalism. I have tried to correct this in the hopes that you would not persist in your violations of the 3rr. I now give up. I am now leaving your contribution, not reverting it, and I instead have reported it. I hope that editors will see my good intentions and that you will come to understand the importance of this policy. In my view, your contributions have been very counter-productive. This paragraph should be removed and your 3rr violations should be addressed. MiamiDolphins3 15:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed text[edit]

I am removing the disputed text inserted 10 times by User:Princess ofClouterland and asking that it not be reinserted unless/until the following are addressed and consensus is reached: 1.) A source. This needs to be footnoted. What exactly did Rosenhaus say and where; 2.) Why, even if true, is this at all encyclopedic? It does not deal with anything that makes him notable or his core job; and 3.) Input and consensus from any other interested editors, including me, who strongly advocate its exclusion. Only if 1, 2, and 3 are addressed should this be considered for reinclusion. Please do not reinsert it, since this already has been a source of 3rr warnings, based on my own complaint about how this has been handled by User:Princess ofClouterland. Disputed text content:

Personal Beliefs[edit]

On May 30, 2006 Rosenhaus was contacted to do the Rick Ball show on the TEAM 1040, a sports talk radio station in Vancouver, BC. He cited his opposition to the seal hunt as his reason for refusal to do any Canadian radio, though the hunt takes place nowhere near Vancouver and no radio station has any control over it. MiamiDolphins3 21:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with MiamiDolphins3 that this should not be included because it is trivial or involving "a foreign country" (gasp!), as he indicated in one of his own reverts. But such a statement should have some kind of source, or at least a reference. That is, the passive voice (R "was contacted") leads one to wonder: was contacted by whom? I think that Princess ofClouterland or someone else has to do a little research to find a source, and then this can be included. Cheers, 129.171.49.201 23:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was listening to TEAM1040 over the Internet the day it happened, and the DJs were having quite a laugh at Rosenhaus's sudden adherence to principle (and quite a non-sequitur at that – it would be like boycotting an Austrian radio station because you don't like Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial policies). Obviously you're not going to have a written source for something like that – who on earth would have recorded it? (If TEAM1040 has an audio-vault, you could find it there, but I don't think they do). Unless Rosenhaus has a website spelling it out, this is obviously something he thought privately until he brought it into the mainstream by refusing an interview with a very standard sports station. (How you conclude that TEAM1040 is a "small" station is beyond me. I somehow doubt you've conducted studies on its market share in Vancouver... they're not huge, because it's an all-sports station, but it's significant in absolute terms in a city of 2 million people). Moreover, the DJs took note that Rosenhaus's view had been expressed on Wikipedia. It's clearly something he believes in, so keep it in. I don't see the problem. J21 06:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
J21: It cannot be reinserted based on your explanation. Wikipedia is not to be a source for original resource. If it has not been reference in any credible media, there's a reason for it: they too were either a.) unable to verify it; or b.) considered it greatly trivial; or c.) both. Finally, my description of the Vancouver station was only meant to contrast it with the fact that DR appears on Fox Sports, ESPN and very large sports media outlets. In comparison, it's small. And I fully understand that wikipedia is a global, not just a U.S., outlet, but this person and his business are U.S.-based. Vancouver doesn't even have a team, so media based there becomes somewhat less relevant and less high profile. Bottom line, though, is that this is a sourceless paragraph and, even if you had a transcript of the DJ statements, it's baseless without a response confirming or denying it by DR, which would probably exist in any maninstream media coverage of this. MiamiDolphins3 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

Do we really need a quotes section simply for something he said repeatedly during one press conference? I think it's unnecessary, but I'll refrain from removing it until I some other opinions. --TopGear 17:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be removed. It was already been mentioned in his biography section. It is just plain redundant to have a section devoted to it. --Oskar Mayer Nguyener 21:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami mafia.

Discuss. Uncle G 16:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose: The value of the Miami mafia article is the influence of it as a group. Yes, the assistance provided Drew Rosenhaus in building his sports agency is one such example. But the idea is to think of the group, not one individual. This group of alumni helped him build his agency. All reporting suggests they are involved in other areas of athletics, and in business, politics and other fields too. MiamiDolphins3 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support: Was there an AfD for that article? It's not mentioned over there; I just added the {{Mergeto}} template. There is no evidence that this group exists, save what exists on a couple of blogs. The term is much more commonly used as a term for anti-Castro Cuban exiles; I believe it is/was Castro's preferred term--and he's not talking about Rosenhaus. If anything, it makes sense to add a "Miami mafia" section to this article, emphasizing the speculative nature of reports on the group. If more evidence arises in the future to suggest taht this is an actual group, then it makes sense to have its own article. But if Wikipedia gave a cute name and article to every informal group of business associates, you'd have a very useless encyclopedia. Rolando 16:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support as previously discussed at Talk:Miami mafia. There is no evidence that this group actually exists even in an informal sense or that it involves anybody apart from Rosenhaus who is notable. -- No Guru 16:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose. The group, informal as it may be, has been referenced in numerous national media and appears to have been the basis for at least one notable development: the growth of one of the NFL's most controversial agents as a force in the NFL. The media articles suggest that there may be other fields where the group has collaborated. Seems a useful article, especially, as I suspect, we start to learn more about its workings. MiamiDolphins3 13:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there numerous references in the national media? There are only two provided in the article which are blog postings. These blog postings are not even about the supposed Miami Mafia - they are about Rosenhaus - which is the whole point. There is no magazine or newspaper article from a reliable source that explains what it is exactly that these people do and which notable people (besides Rosenhaus)are in this group. If you read Wikipedia:Verifiability You will see that Sources should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy . These blog postings do not meet this standard. But the main point for me is, if this group does nothing, and contains nobody who is notable apart from Rosenhaus, what is the point of having an article on this suposed group ? -- No Guru 18:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (response) I understand your general point. The article, in my view, has some value because the name is a source of common reference and there are a few articles referencing it, whether or not you consider those adequate (the one is from FoxSports). I think if it gets deleted now, we see further references down the road and maybe further developments and the article then becomes fully justified and almost a glaring oversight that it didn't exist already. Clearly, a lot of people in this group collaborated and not just to help Rosenhaus, but to change some of the very dynamics of how deals get done in the NFL. On that basis alone, it's notable. MiamiDolphins3 20:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify anybody besides Rosenhaus who is in this group ? -- No Guru 21:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Roethlisberger is not a client[edit]

Ben Roethlisberger is not a client of Drew Rosenhaus. Leigh Steinberg is Roethlisberger's agent.

NFL-Agents.com lists Leigh Steinberg as Roethlisberger's agent.

RosenhausSports.com does not list Roethlisberger as a client.

Sfbarron (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drew Rosenhaus. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drew Rosenhaus. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drew_Rosenhaus&oldid=1201129402"