Talk:Sports Illustrated cover jinx

Opening heading

I am interested in where the original research is that relates SI cover athletes to regression towards the mean. Anyone know anything more about this? --Kbobk (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation Bias?

In addition to a (fairly) rigorous statistical treatment of the jinx, the cited article "The Cover That No One Would Pose for: Is the SI Jinx for Real?", quotes a sports psychologist with a plausible (I think) explanation of how being on the cover could help to cause bad performances: "This changing perception causes many athletes to feel pressure and have a much harder time achieving their ideal performance." In any case, I think the claim that it's simply an example of confirmation bias would benefit from a citation. Originalname37 (Talk?) 15:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx → Sports Illustrated cover jinx – The words "cover jinx" should not be capitalized, per WP:CAPS Trivialist (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with nom. Should this request be successful, please update the caps in the lead sentence accordingly. Jenks24 (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This is arguably a proper name, a specific jinx, so maybe it should be capped per our sources. (Not sure about that.) It should also be hyphenated, Sports Illustrated-cover jinx, as it's a jinx of being on an SI cover, not a cover jinx of SI. (Those two meanings are pronounced differently.) — kwami (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Mild support: The only place I can find it used as a proper noun (not in a headline, where the casing makes it impossible to tell) is here. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

OR?

While the first part of the article cites sources, the extensive list of "incidents" is largely unverified and is likely OR. Anyone who has any kind of negative event after being on the cover would qualify for this list. Yoninah (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sports Illustrated cover jinx. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/cover/featured/9019/index.htm

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} 04:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Most of these claims on this dubious article are unsourced. However, as Wikipedia is so totally America centric I guess nobody cares. USA, ALL THE WAY! Sirhissofloxley (talk)