Talk:Jay Mariotti

Muckraker
Someone who obviously has no clue about journalism told me that I could not state that Jay Mariotti is an occupational muckraker, because that's a point of view! It's not a point of view! Muckraker is indeed an occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.80.7.227 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Too Colloquial
''On his follow up post acknowledging the denials, Brooks deleted a comment calling BS on his entire report. ''

"Calling BS" is a term that should never appear in an encyclopedia entry, unless it's a quote. Additionally, there is no reference cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.101.214 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes
User:Linnwood insisted that I "Discuss major changes on talk page first". So here's the link to my proposed changes. I will re-implement them in 3 days if there is no disapproval. To explain, I:
 * Removed an already deleted image
 * Added "Mariotti is notorious for getting into feuds with players and journalists.", which is required per WP:LEAD because leads must summarize all article content
 * As suggested in Guide_to_layout, I created separate sections for each person with whom Mariotti has a verified or alleged feud.
 * As required by WP:VERIFY, I tagged or deleted all unverified statements.
 * I removed a phrase using the word "beef", which is American slang for Hip hop rivalries and often implies threats of violence -- totally inappropriate unless someone can back it with a source.

Any questions?--M @ r ē ino 22:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the changes, except info about Guillen's half-hearted apology (air quotation referring to the people he angered), and Mariotti's PTI comments could be added. Also, the last comment on the current edit "Mariotti's alleged arrogance has often angered listeners but has garnered him fans as well." can be kept in my opinion. Good work. -- Abid Ahmed 03:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * there's plenty of sources on mariotti's other fueds... should be easy to find.

There has to be room in this article for not having a direct email address available to readers and for not allowing comments on his articles at the Sun Times website. Teddy Greenstein wrote about this in the March 28th edition of the Chicago Tribune. It's under the subheading "Silence is Golden." Linkage follows: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-28-greenstein-inside-mediamar28,1,6693029.story.The Chronek (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bias
There seems to be a lot of bias against this man within this article, particularly in the first paragraph. I recommend flagging this article. The guy may not be well-liked, but he deserves an unbiased article just like any other sports journalist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.39.168.91 (talk • contribs).


 * Whois for this IP tracks to Bloomington, Ill. Could be just a reader, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is the busybody himself. Aplomado  talk 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to Mariotti with the "busybody" comment, it is unlikely that he was in Bloomington, which is a college town ~150 miles southwest of Chicago without anything to pique Mariotti's interest.

Mariotti is a sports writer, so this article should be about his accomplishments in journalism. Feuds can be mentioned, because thats history, but his career isn't to fight with people, but to write which he does. People may not like it, but they sure do read it. Just a suggestion, but I think there should be more information about his actual job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellokl (talk • contribs)


 * If anyone can find some verifiable sources praising Mariotti, or showing that his actual job is more than just being a controversy-loving sports journalist, obviously we should include it. I have little to no opinion about Mr. Mariotti; I hadn't even heard about him before this Guillen thing, so I'd be glad to monitor the article to make sure that that sort of information stays in, if properly sourced. --M @ r ē ino 02:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Bill O'Reilly could be seen as a controversy-loving journalist, but his article does not contain as much of a focus on his controversial career. Rather, it focuses on his career with a small section of how he is considered controversial. I think Mariotti's page could be similar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.39.168.91 (talk • contribs).

[personal attack removed]

Mariotti was recently in Washington, DC and got drunk and insulted the school LSU. [Here] Here is the source where I got that info. ---That may be the worst source ever cited on wikipedia...but something tells me (sadly) that its not you think? i dont know it looks pretty legit to meKendynamo 22:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the article?
I know Jay isn't the most liked person around, but what happened to his article? Did something happen that warranted the article's deletion? ErikNY 19:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This article was speedy deleted for not complying with our WP:BLP policy, an action which was not entirely congruent with our responsibility to maintain GFDL compliance. I have restored the edit history and provided some basic references for this subject.  That said, I ask that everyone here do their very best to diligently watch over this article and immediately removed any unsourced material which creeps in.  If there are any specific diffs in the history which need to be removed by way of oversight, please notify a member of the arbitration committee or file a requests through OTRS.  Contact me on my talk page or via email if there are questions about any of this.  Thanks, Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 00:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not restore the whole history; most of the article there contains potentially libellious statements without any sources. I deleted the article following following a OTRS complaint. David.Monniaux 09:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See above. If there are libellous statements, please remove them.  Completely deleting all 250 previous edits is not how we respond to OTRS complaints.  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 15:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely deleting all 250 previous edits is precisely what we should be doing in such cases, as well as banning all the users who inserted the nonsense. There is simply no excuse for such behavior. People who do things like this are not welcome at Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales 16:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am troubled by this response. The problem is that not all 250 of the edits were problematic, for example this stub created by ErikNY on May 21, 2005.  While I agree wholeheartedly that we should ban anyone who inserts libellous vandalism into an article, it is more complicated than that.  What should we be doing when an article contains a high degree of salvageable history?  Virtually every article on Wikipedia about a controversial figure has some degree of vandalism, and I disagree that in those cases we should be deleting the entire histories of said articles.  Can you please clarify what you mean by this?  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 17:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case we have a strong complaint about the article from the subject of the article. There is no need to quibble in such cases.  We should nuke the whole thing and start over.  It's more work to dig through 250 old revisions looking for the bad ones than to simply start over.  Writing a single article is easy for us these days.  And if we had to do without an article about this guy for a year or more, it is no big loss.  I think we have to be very very firm in cases like this.  (There is an attack site, trolls who hate the guy, etc.  It's s stupid fight from somewhere else.)--Jimbo Wales 17:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it would be a great loss. If we were begin deleting articles based on these circumstances, it would make it far too easy for trolls and vandals to game the deletion of articles simply by poisoning the edit history.  Here's a better solution: provide some sort of Oversight light tool to administrators for hiding vandalism from the public history, and then block the person responsible (as we already do).  I really think that nuking extensive edit histories under these circumstances is way too drastic and a bad precedent to set.  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So everytime some windbag like Mariotti doesn't like his article, he can just complain to you and have his article nuked? While I understand protecting the foundation from libel, this is over the top. Aplomado  talk 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that response to the concern of one person is troubling. I can understand someone doesn't like their entry, but shouldn't that just speak to the importance of that person being a better person? There are ways to limit libelous attacks without rubbishing an entire article. If everyone who didn't like their depiction in Wikipedia expressed such dismay with their articles, would you can all those articles? The wonder of Wikipedia is that there are plenty of people who take great pleasure in keeping the site accurate. Wikitoddia 06:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Friends:

Attack site (or sites) is the crucial phrase.—Of the biographical entries for living sports commentators hosted by Wikipedia, how many have generated vandalism-related headaches comparable to the single entry for the Chicago Sun-Times’s Jay Mariotti?

“Can’t sleep, clown will eat me” (18:06, 6 October 2006) raises an essential caveat: If Wikipedia were to delete entries based on the fear that their content was drafted by trolls with an axe to grind, it would make it far too easy for them “to game the deletion of articles simply by poisoning the edit history.”

True enough. But consider also that if the ostensible subject of an entry is the target of highly motivated negative sockpuppets, what does Wikipedia gain by preserving their handiwork?

Now. I do not pretend to know how an Internet encyclopedia can remain open-source and yet not fall prey to negative sockpuppeting—the core problem in the Mariotti case.

But as long as Wikipedia allows anonymous contributions, the real edit history of each and every entry is destined to remain opaque. Period. Under such circumstances, Wikipedia will be susceptible to every form of fraud the human mind can imagine.

Thanks.

David Peterson 18:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Chicago

Protected Edit Request

 * Please insert the "ozzie guillen" section from This previous edit. It is extremely well sourced, and should serve as a template for other editors who would like to go about recreating a complete article. --M @ r ē ino 17:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also please consider adding information about his awards, as editor 170.35.224.64 suggested. --M @ r ē ino 17:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia lets subjects of articles dictate the content?
"In this case we have a strong complaint about the article from the subject of the article."--Wow. So the article was erased because Jay Mariotti didn't like it. Wow. Embarassing. Vidor 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but read Biography of Living Persons. He does have the right to demand that we remove anything that can't be 100% sourced and verified. Fan-1967 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt that encompasses the entire article. Vidor 22:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Standard practice in these cases, when so many people have added so much crap that it becomes practically impossible to separate the sourced, verifiable material from the garbage. (Some sports fans can get ridiculous when they feel their idols or teams have been wronged. Look at the garbage that's happened so often in the Steve Bartman article.) The article gets reduced to a minimal stub, with absolutely nothing objectionable possible. After things cool down, the article will get gradually opened up and watched very carefully for any inappropriate additions. Fan-1967 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, all I can say to that is that it's in the best interests of Wikipedia to reopen this article ASAP. Because, as it currently stands, it looks like Wikipedia answers to Jay Marriotti.  And that's not so good for the site's PR. Restrict it so that only registered users can edit, perhaps.  Vidor 21:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not let the subjects of articles dictate content, but that's a completely red herring argument here. The point is, Wikipedia does not let vicious trolls with an axe to grind post unverifiable vitriole where a neutral biography should be. What we have now is a bit short, but it is at least respectable. I hope that it will be expanded soon by sensible people, and that all the viciousness be kept out. --Jimbo Wales 20:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I have used Wikipedia since day 1 and you guys have never done anything I've disagreed with. This edit, however, is completely unacceptable and if you guys continue to pander to some guy for no reason I will just stop using the site. This is kind of a sham imo. You took out TONS of stuff that WAS sourced with the justification that not everything was sourced. What is to gain by pandering to some sportswriter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.123.41.42 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrite
The same guy who once said "Take your shots at me, all you are doing is making me more famous." got his article taken down. This shot must have hurt. See Press Boxing Zzz345zzz 21:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

On Around the Horn on 10/26 Mariotti says "If you criticize people, you have to be ready to take criticism. I know that!" when discussing Tiki Barbar's comments about Michael Irvin. 21:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Jay Mariotti really good, or is that just something that Ozzie Guillen said?

Wikipedia Controversy?
Should we add this section under controversies? It would seem appropriate when you consider the comments he made about "Take your shots at me, all you are doing is making me more famous." and "If you criticize people, you have to be ready to take criticism. I know that!" This was also covered by both PTI and Deadspin so we have sources. Zzz345zzZ 06:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't be independently verified?
Before you go and make comments like this, it is best to run a simple google search to back your claim up. I searched for Mariotti harrelson on yahoo and the number 3 link (behind the wiki article and the deadspin article cited) provides a Chicago Tribune article that backs up the info you deemed "cannot be independently verified and is just speculation". Zzz345zzZ 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

2 Nicknames
I vote to include the two nicknames given to him by Ozzie Guillen, which are "Fucking Fag" and "A Piece of shit" These statements describe Mariotti pretty well.
 * I vote to ignore this statement. All in favor? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Several sources will confirm that Guillen did indeed give Mariotti those 2 nicknames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.23.132 (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I vote for inclusion. Magmagoblin (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Resignation given undue weight
Fully a third or more of the prose in this article is about the journalist's actions of this week. Obviously, his recent resignation is given much too much weight in the article. Gentgeen (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the De Luca comments could be cut down significantly. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Around the Horn
I think that there should be more about Mariotti's career on ATH. He and Woody Paige have been a fixture on the show for several years, and their rivalry is famous in the sports world. I guess his page has been remodeled because of bias, but couldn't some objective content about his time on ESPN be added? StanHater (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My recent edit
After reading an email sent to Wikimedia ticket:2016101910018522, I reviewed the article, noted that it had been vandalized several times a day many of which have been reverted. However, the remaining article included a number of negative statements which were not supported by reliable sources. Per our BLP policy we do not automatically remove negative statements but we do not permit negative statements without solid sourcing to remain.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jay Mariotti. 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/20101004183430/http://www.huffingtonpost.com:80/2010/09/30/jay-mariotti-sentenced-af_n_746043.html? to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/30/jay-mariotti-sentenced-af_n_746043.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) 12:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2021
Marriotti is a dickwad.(This is NOT a controversial statement.) 2600:387:F:4C33:0:0:0:5 (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It might well be. Vaticidalprophet 05:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request: Unmuted Podcast appears defunct
According to the list of episodes at Apple Podcasts, Unmuted has not produced new episodes since November of 2020. (The article currently includes a link to an episode list at podbean, which stops listing new episodes after 2018.) I can not find any indication that this podcast is still being produced. Btings (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)