Talk:Hank Aaron/Archive 1

message: Remember folks this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA... not a freaking baseball statistics book. you need to EXPLAIN this stuff as you would to a 6yr old who doesnt know the material. Also this needs some SERIOUS reformatting and wikifying. Alkivar 22:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: a cleanup notice simply means it needs to have data sorted into a more "pretty" view in my opinion. and to break things down into more sub-sections for ease of browsing. As it is there are WAAAAAY too many text only charts that should be turned into linked tables. see below for more of what i'm talking about Alkivar 02:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Yeah I've just put in a one-line text box now that doesn't take up much space. Lots of players do have a stats line somewhere in their articles. Mglovesfun 14:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stats

message: I think we ought to delete the tables of statistics on this page and let the external links point to pages with statistics. Gorrister 18:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics

message: Aaron was in fact the last negro league player to make it to the major leagues.  Aaron was drafted before Banks - 1952 vs. 1953, but Banks made it to the majors in 1953 vs. Aaron who made it in 1954.  The [Negro league players association] website states that Aaron was the last. Gorrister 12:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Last negro league player to make major leagues

message: Perhaps someone would care to explain why the fact that Mr. Aaron gave out the award named in his honor during the 2004 postseason is in any way important to his life, career, or legacy?  This does not seem like something that belongs in an encyclopedia article. Indrian 00:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its quite uncommon thats why. The awards have been given out for a long time (nearly 20 years?)... this is the FIRST and ONLY time he was there to personally hand it out. It certainly belongs more to the article than the fact that he voiced a character in Futurama, or runs a BMW Car Dealership, or has an Erdős number of 1. At least the fact he handed out the award named after him is BASEBALL related.  ALKIVAR™ 03:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll buy that, but I think the article needs to make note of the special circumstances of the event, otherwise it does just appear to be a random and useless fact.Indrian 23:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert by Alkivar

message: I have read that Aaron converted to Catholicism after reading Thomas à Kempis's 'The Imitation of Christ'.  Can anybody corroborate this? JackofOz 02:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholicism

message: I know this has come up before, but in my opinion the league leader charts make this page less readable and contain a lot on unnecessary information (do we really need to know that Aaron was second in the NL in GIDP in 1955?). Someone in the peer review mentioned that if these charts were moved to there own page they would be deleted, as wikipedia is not a baseball statistics guide. I agree. What is, however, a baseball statistics guide is Baseball-Reference.com. This page contains a link to Aaron's Baseball-Reference page, as do most player bios on Wikipedia. All of this info and more is contained on that page. As long as the link text makes clear that it is a page of statistics, people will know where to find them.  Thoughts? --djrobgordon 17:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I take the silence to mean that everyone has come around to an identical point of view, or just that nobody wants to argue about this anymore? I still plan on drastically cutting down on the number of charts on this page, but I'm in a bit of a tift over at Babe Ruth and really don't have the time for multiple edit wars. Now's your chance to tell me what the league leader charts do that sentences can't. --djrobgordon 18:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  League Leader charts 

message: Not that this isn't common on Wikipedia but a portion of this article read word-for-word with this article from ESPN. Perhaps if someone has time they can copyedit it. Anger22 13:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of this article are copied from ESPN 

message: "24 All-Star appearances over 21 seasons"
How is this possible? I count that he played 23 seasons, so most likely that should be 21 appearances in 23? Can someone confirm this? Mglovesfun 15:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All star appearances 

message: The article currently notes that "Hank Aaron is second behind Japanese baseball player Sadaharu Oh (868) as the all time home run hitter in recorded baseball history." Since the Sadaharu Oh entry itself points out that Oh's record is not comparable to a MLB record due to smaller ballparks, different bats, etc. I'd like to change this article to read "Hank Aaron is second behind Japanese baseball player Sadaharu Oh (868) as the all time home run hitter in recorded baseball history; however, their records are not directly comparable due to differences between American and Japanese ballparks and equipment." Any objections/suggestions? Mrquizzical 04:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, Oh shouldn't even be mentioned, except maybe in the Trivia section. The records are, indeed, not comprable, and giving the comparison such a prominent place in this article doesn't provide a baseball novice with an accurate perspective of Aaron's place in the game's history. --djrobgordon 04:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It would get a little wordy to try and explain in the flow of the article.  The Trivia section would be a good place for it.  Heck, let's let Hank have a few final months of glory before the Barry Bonds fans rip this article to shreds next season.  :) -- dakern74 (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Change made. Thanks for the feedback. Mrquizzical 03:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sadaharu Oh 

message: This article is in some major work.  I am trying my best to balance the idea of verifiable information with what I do not know.  As such, I will try and add the  code where applicable.  It would probably help if someone could double check the sources.  I don't want to expunge work that has been cited, but I am not sure the best research was done.  Oh yeah, I moved the page as well... his name was Henry Aaron not Hank Aaron :-). Thoughts/ideas/comments ??? --Tecmobowl 12:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is important to recognize that wikipedia does not "prefer" one over the other.  That article is a suggestion.  That being said, if there is an overwhelming consensus one way or the other then just change it back (it ain't that hard).  I do not think that google search results should be considered at all when discussing this issue, if you remove the quotation marks, the results would weigh heavily in the direction of Henry over Hank.  I am familiar with the Naming conventions.  I do not think that people really believe Cher's name is only one word.  Rather, she has been identified by that to the public.  Similarly, I do not think people have confused Babe with George (as in Ruth).  I do think that people have come to believe that Hank was his birth name.  I even went so far as to look it up in a major encyclopedia that we have and under Hank Aaron it said: see Henry L. Aaron.  In any event, have at it.Tecmobowl 01:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, it does not matter whether this was the right decision or not: moving any page on a significant topic with a large editing history to a new name simply should not be undertaken without first having a discussion to determine consensus.  Making such a move without consultation really is just bad form.  I know you were not being a vandal and were acting in good faith, so please do not take this as an attack.  Second, your given reason for moving ("I do think that people have come to believe that Hank was his birth name.") makes no sense, because the article heading clearly gives his name as Henry Louis Aaron.  Even if someone comes to a page called Hank Aaron thinking that is his real first name, once they start reading the article, it becomes immediately clear this is not so.  Third, while I do not want to get into a technical debate on the definition of words in the English language, the phrase "The most used name to refer to a person is generally the one that Wikipedia will choose as page name" from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) indicates that the most recognized name is the one most often used on wikipedia, which by defintion makes it a preference even if that word is not used.  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) also indicates a preference for the most commonly used name.  While that page is not an official policy, just a guideline, it still enjoys a broad consensus, which means it still has great weight, and dismissing it out of hand as a "suggestion" is rather disingenuous.  Fourth, I have no idea what "major" encyclopedia you used, but the Encyclopedia Britannica, Microsoft Encarta, Microsoft Complete Baseball, the Ballplayers, Baseball: The Biographical Encyclopedia, Total Baseball, the New Biographical History of Baseball, Baseballreference.com, baseballlibrary.com, and retrosheet.com all contain entries on Aaron under the name Hank Aaron, not Henry Aaron.  If that is not a ringing endorsement for what the scholarly baseball community considers to be the proper name to use in an article about Aaron, I don't know what is. Indrian 15:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, thanks for sharing.  It's wiki... why don't you try and fix the situation rather than just complain about it.  You might even want to try and contribute to the article.Tecmobowl 22:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  You need to calm down and keep things civil here so as not to violate a policy or two.  I do plan on moving the page back to its original location, but unlike you, I am waiting to give some time for discussion on the matter and am waiting a couple of days to make sure there is no serious objection.  Also, I have contributed to this article, and many others on wikipedia, and there is no need to lash out at me in such a childish manner.  If you want to continue civil and serious discussion on this matter, I am happy to join you; if you consider the subject closed, that is fine to, but if you respond to this message with another unproductive retort, I will just ignore it.  I can see by looking at your talk page that you have had some trouble getting along with others in the past, and I would suggest modifying your attitude a little to have a more fulfilling wikipedia experience. Indrian 00:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just move it back then and stop being so argumentative.  Everyone else made constructive comments i moved it and put a comment on the talk page.  User:Aleph4 and User:Ladydayelle both made reasonable points.  Just move the page back and stop making threats. (forgot to sign this earlier) Tecmobowl 13:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I was actually trying to move the page back per my last statement (which i forgot to sign). I just screwed up that's all. Why is everyone on here a conspiracy theorist.  Page is back and i have done enough editing for one person on this, I hope people continue the cleanup and go get some good sources for the material. Tecmobowl 13:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Everyone gets jumpy when sockpuppet allegations get thrown around but everything seems settled down now.  Let's all relax and get back to improving the article per Tecmobowl's suggestion.  If anyone is serious about moving this article, bring it to WP:RM.  That's where controversial moves are requested and clearly this move would be controversial!  :)  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-Up Coming

message: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) suggests to use  the name that is most generally recognisable. 
I am certainly not an expert on baseball, but it is my impression  that "Hank Aaron" is infinitely more  recognisable than "Henry Aaron". (Google says: 10 times more)
As an example, our  guideline on naming conventions gives Billy Joel rather than his full name William Martin Joel; the full name  is mentioned in the article, but (currently) not even a redirection. 
--Aleph4 14:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is important to recognize that wikipedia does not "prefer" one over the other.  That article is a suggestion.  That being said, if there is an overwhelming consensus one way or the other then just change it back (it ain't that hard).  I do not think that google search results should be considered at all when discussing this issue, if you remove the quotation marks, the results would weigh heavily in the direction of Henry over Hank.  I am familiar with the Naming conventions.  I do not think that people really believe Cher's name is only one word.  Rather, she has been identified by that to the public.  Similarly, I do not think people have confused Babe with George (as in Ruth).  I do think that people have come to believe that Hank was his birth name.  I even went so far as to look it up in a major encyclopedia that we have and under Hank Aaron it said: see Henry L. Aaron.  In any event, have at it.Tecmobowl 01:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, it does not matter whether this was the right decision or not: moving any page on a significant topic with a large editing history to a new name simply should not be undertaken without first having a discussion to determine consensus.  Making such a move without consultation really is just bad form.  I know you were not being a vandal and were acting in good faith, so please do not take this as an attack.  Second, your given reason for moving ("I do think that people have come to believe that Hank was his birth name.") makes no sense, because the article heading clearly gives his name as Henry Louis Aaron.  Even if someone comes to a page called Hank Aaron thinking that is his real first name, once they start reading the article, it becomes immediately clear this is not so.  Third, while I do not want to get into a technical debate on the definition of words in the English language, the phrase "The most used name to refer to a person is generally the one that Wikipedia will choose as page name" from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) indicates that the most recognized name is the one most often used on wikipedia, which by defintion makes it a preference even if that word is not used.  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) also indicates a preference for the most commonly used name.  While that page is not an official policy, just a guideline, it still enjoys a broad consensus, which means it still has great weight, and dismissing it out of hand as a "suggestion" is rather disingenuous.  Fourth, I have no idea what "major" encyclopedia you used, but the Encyclopedia Britannica, Microsoft Encarta, Microsoft Complete Baseball, the Ballplayers, Baseball: The Biographical Encyclopedia, Total Baseball, the New Biographical History of Baseball, Baseballreference.com, baseballlibrary.com, and retrosheet.com all contain entries on Aaron under the name Hank Aaron, not Henry Aaron.  If that is not a ringing endorsement for what the scholarly baseball community considers to be the proper name to use in an article about Aaron, I don't know what is. Indrian 15:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, thanks for sharing.  It's wiki... why don't you try and fix the situation rather than just complain about it.  You might even want to try and contribute to the article.Tecmobowl 22:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  You need to calm down and keep things civil here so as not to violate a policy or two.  I do plan on moving the page back to its original location, but unlike you, I am waiting to give some time for discussion on the matter and am waiting a couple of days to make sure there is no serious objection.  Also, I have contributed to this article, and many others on wikipedia, and there is no need to lash out at me in such a childish manner.  If you want to continue civil and serious discussion on this matter, I am happy to join you; if you consider the subject closed, that is fine to, but if you respond to this message with another unproductive retort, I will just ignore it.  I can see by looking at your talk page that you have had some trouble getting along with others in the past, and I would suggest modifying your attitude a little to have a more fulfilling wikipedia experience. Indrian 00:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just move it back then and stop being so argumentative.  Everyone else made constructive comments i moved it and put a comment on the talk page.  User:Aleph4 and User:Ladydayelle both made reasonable points.  Just move the page back and stop making threats. (forgot to sign this earlier) Tecmobowl 13:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I was actually trying to move the page back per my last statement (which i forgot to sign). I just screwed up that's all. Why is everyone on here a conspiracy theorist.  Page is back and i have done enough editing for one person on this, I hope people continue the cleanup and go get some good sources for the material. Tecmobowl 13:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Everyone gets jumpy when sockpuppet allegations get thrown around but everything seems settled down now.  Let's all relax and get back to improving the article per Tecmobowl's suggestion.  If anyone is serious about moving this article, bring it to WP:RM.  That's where controversial moves are requested and clearly this move would be controversial!  :)  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hank or Henry?

message: Re: the  tag, is there any particular issue that needs to be addressed?  When there are sources and references in an article, I usually prefer individual  tags instead of the more general  and  tags.  Then people can focus on the actual problem areas instead of trying to reconcile the entire article.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primarysources tag 

message: I believe we need more photos to enhance this article. Thoughts?Techmobowls 20:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Photos

message: There are some numbers in this section which can't be correct. For example:
... the record for the most seasons with 30 or more home runs in the National League (12222222222).
Aaron also knocked in the 2,000,000,000th run of his career ...
I presume that they were correct previously and have been vandalised; perhaps someone could
revert it back to the correct version. - 129.67.108.178 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The chase is on. 

message: When he hit his record-breaking HR, who were the two "college students" that ran up to him on the field? I'd always figured that their identities were unknown, but if it's known that they were in college then their identities can't be that much of a mystery, right? If possible, it would be good to get this information on here as it is basically impossible to find elsewhere (at least as far as I can tell) 69.143.4.232 16:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 2 College Students  

message: Nice to see that a lot of citations have been added to this article, well done to anyone who added them
. Mglovesfun 14:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements

message: There appears to be a lack of objectivity when it comes to value statements regarding Aaron's place in the history of baseball. Hitters with lesser statistics have generalizations made about them quite safely such as the comment about Ted Williams, i.e., "He is widely considered to be one of the greatest hitters in the history of baseball." This statement is safe, because it is a widely held belief. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how this article omits this kind of value statement, given Aaron's superior statistics and the widely held belief among many fans that he is also "one of the greatest hitters in the history of baseball".--Aberforth (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard telling what you're really trying to say, but in any case, Ruth had 714 in his career, Aaron had 755, so Bonds moved into second place when he hit number 715, and into first place when he hit number 756. Aaron hit 733 in the National League, but that was a league record, not a career record. So Bonds broke Aaron's league record when he hit number 734, but needed 22 more to break Aaron's career record. Ruth, of course, still holds the American League record with 708 (he hit 6 in the National League). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to offend you, but I was simply trying to make the point that the record wouldn't be set indefinately after it was broken, and it wouldn't make sense if it were to do so. I don't know much about baseball, hockey's my thing, so I just said that so someone would correct the page, because I knew I couldn't. Echoes134 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't offend me since I still don't know what you're talking about. Bonds broke Aaron's career record when he hit number 756. Each one he hit after that, broke / extended his own record. Whatever his current number may be (and I don't know and really don't care what it is), is the current career record. Is that what you're trying to say? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of home runs by Bonds

message: I am not a Barry Bonds fan; nor am I hoping he breaks the record.  However, I think aits relevant to mention him somewhere in this article, especially the reasoning behind Hank's announcement that he will not attend the game in which Bonds breaks his record.  What do others think? M. Frederick 17:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Trevor GH5 16:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that if/when Bonds breaks Hanks record, it should be referenced that Bonds was the one who did it. However, any reference to what Hank feels about Bonds' use of steriods is totally inappropriate! Hank, himself, stated, during a recent interview for Sun Sports by Chris Dimino, "Hank Aaron: In My Own Words",, that he made the statement of not attending anything to do with the breaking of his record, before the steroid issue emergered. He has always stated that "records were meant to be broken".Flborn 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barry Bonds

message: He was awarded an honourary law degree in 1995:  . Add it if you think it deserves a mention.  --203.206.183.160 12:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hank Aaron's law degree 

message: I have removed the following links from the EL section.  The biography pages seem much more appropriate for sources and 3 stats sites seems excessive.  Here the are in case someone wants to use them as sources:
* georgiaencyclopedia.org Aaron story
* gshf.org Georgia Sports Hall of Fame
* Fangraphs stats
Long levi 06:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sites to use for resources 

message: :Pls return the fangraphs EL.  This has been the subject of an extensive discussion on the baseball wikiproject baseball page.  The consensus was to include it as an EL.  The one vociferous disagreeing editor has, btw, been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. Tx.--Epeefleche 10:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've read all of that stuff.  That's why i moved it here.  Long Levi  20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm confused.  That stuff, as you put it, supports Fangraphs being listed as an EL.  You moved it.  If you are to abide by the consensus on that page, you should put it back as an EL.  Am I missing something?--Epeefleche 03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, your not confused.  That site does not offer anything that warrants its inclusion over the other sites.  Long Levi  05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm sorry, but that is completely at odds with the consensus regarding Fangraphs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Deletions_by_Tecmobowl_of_hundreds_of_baseball_urls_w.2Funique_information.3B_failure_to_discuss.3B_edit_warring and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#External_links.  Please RV in accordance with that consensus.  If you do not, I will.  The consensus is clear. True, there was one user, a sockpuppet and abuser of Wiki policy who deleted many of these ELs without consensus.  But he has been banned indefinitely for such behavior. --Epeefleche 12:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Please don't drag me into your arguments.  I am not here to pass judgement on who said what when.   I'm just improving the quality of this article.  Please be more mindful of the fact that others do not agree with any part of that discussion. Including the fact that you titled the section in what I view as a personal attack on someone.  There are already two stats sites in this article.  I do not see any benefit to that third link.  If you want to put it in, you might consider replacing on of the ones already being used.   Long Levi  00:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You are exhibiting the behavior and supporting it with the same refusal to accept consensus -- as to the same ELs -- that Tecmobowl (a sockpuppet and banned user) did.  I'm sorry, but that is completely at odds with the consensus regarding Fangraphs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Deletions_by_Tecmobowl_of_hundreds_of_baseball_urls_w.2Funique_information.3B_failure_to_discuss.3B_edit_warring and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#External_links.  This conversation has already been had.  I am confused as to why you do not respect it, especially since the point was made that this behavior is unacceptable -- indeed, made so emphatically that Tecmo was banned indefinitely.  The existence of that consensus is clearly demonstrated in the links that I have included on your talk page.--Epeefleche 01:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I find your behavior here to be pretty unfortunate.  While I was really trying to help push this toward a WP:GA, it appears that you don't want that to happen. I think I'll move on for now and come back later to this one.  Please don't bring this up anymore as it is a non issue with me.  Long Levi  05:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not clear.  Which point are you asking me not to bring up any more?  That there is consensus over the Fangraphs EL, which I am suggesting be respected?  Or that your behavior in refusing to respect the Fangraphs EL consensus mirrors rather dramatically that of Tecmobowl, the banned sockpuppet?  Both points seem to me to be legitimate points to raise, in light of your actions (and Tecmo's actions).  And I might point out that Tecmo had the same habit of asking that other editors not say things ... if he disagreed with them.--Epeefleche 07:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion by Long levi of Fangraphs EL

message: "Although some have speculated that this is a snubbing of Bonds based on the ongoing steroids scandal, some have looked back to Aaron's own history and how he downplayed his breaking of Babe Ruth's all-time record, and see Aaron's actions as simply treating Bonds the way he wanted to be treated."
Who is "some"? Why are they relevant? And who cares *why* Hank Aaron refuses to attend Barry Bond's celebratory dinner? As long as he himself does not reveal his motive, all we can do is speculate. Such speculation does not belong in WP. Qifan 14:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-playing career 

message: Per WP:EL, I don't think the stats section belongs at all.  However, in trying to find a compromise, I have shortened the section to display his career statistics.  Providing a full list of his career stats will inundate readers and takes up valuable space than could be used to relay content.  There are two stats sites already included in the EL section, so a reader can easily access that information if need be.
Per WP:GTL#See_also, I have shortened the See Also section.  According to the Guideline section, it appears that all of the information could in fact be removed and incorporated into the article.  That being said, a number of categories and templates are already in place to relay the same information that is in the see also article.  If one hits 700 home runs, then there is no real need to establish them as a 500 and 600 and 700 "club" member.  Considering that the information is already in place with a variety of categories, it needed to be condensed.  Rather than outright removal, I have left one link in there that does not appear in another place currently.  As the article improves, it is likely that the section can be removed altogether.  Long Levi  21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also & Stats 

message: I noticed that all three players (supposedly Hank Aaron, Stan Musial, and Willie Mays) with 24 all star appearances played less than 24 seasons in the league, and some sites list Hank's appearances as 21, which excludes his first and last seasons (adding up to his 23 seasons played). I'm not sure what should be put. If somebody knows why it is 24 for these guys, please explain. It's a little weird that there would be so many different and varying amounts across the internet. Thanks. 24.99.219.179 22:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Star Game Appearances 

message: Henry Aaron played the last two seasons of his career with the Milwaukee Brewers of the American League. Can someone please fix this error?71.125.170.74 04:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. In the future, consider making the fixes yourself :) Kingturtle 05:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for catching that. I fixed it. In the future, please feel free to fix it yourself :) Kingturtle (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hank Aaron, Brewers and the NL 

message: Inserting a note about his Erdös number might be interesting.
Being completely oblivious of the baseball world, I don't really know.
portugal (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: considering that he rates an Erdös number only because they both autographed a baseball, it's more of a joke.  The Wikipedia list of people with an Erdös number does not contain Aaron's name or a link to this page.--SEWalk (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erdös number 

message: It isn't mentioned in his achievments page that he is the all time RBI record holder.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.78.63 (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RBI 

message: As I recall, the 715 ball was caught on the fly by pitcher Tom House, so the phrase "it landed in the bullpen" is incorrect.  It never landed!  This is worth cleaning up, especially since it is unusual for a home run to be caught on the fly by another player.  I saw the home run on TV, and it's what I remember best about it.  ProfessorAndro (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording 

message: It's relevant that they're white in that he had been besieged with death threats, and he later said that he wondered if someone had run onto the field to attack him before he could finish circling the bases. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  White students 

message: I would like to request that due to recent events, namely the opening of the Hank Aaron Childhood Home Museum on April 14, 2010, that an external link to its website Hank Aaron Museum be included in the article and perhaps a reference to its opening or media coverage be made in the awards and honors section or whatever section is deemed appropriate.
Marq08 (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: The link is to the stadium, not a museum, which is more notable. Spitfire19 (Talk) 20:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Marq08, 24 April 2010 

message: {{tld}editsemiprotected}}
Aaron was a 21x all-star, not 25, as indicated.
67.187.43.248 (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 67.187.43.248, 30 May 2010 

message: Hank Aaron has 805 homeruns.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/mlb-credits-hank-aaron-with-50-lost-home-runs,2194/
67.219.89.190 (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, The Onion is a news satire organization. It features satirical articles reporting on international, national, and local news. The Onions articles comment on current events, both real and imagined. It parodies traditional newspaper features, such as editorials, man-on-the-street interviews, and stock quotes, as well as traditional newspaper layout and AP-style editorial voice. Avicennasis @ 06:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 67.219.89.190, 13 June 2010 

message: There seems to be miscalculations/misinformation in stating that Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's Home Run Record.
1. Babe Ruth  hit 714 Home Runs in 22 years, in 2,503 games while being at bat 8,399 times.
2. Hank Aaron hit 755 Home Runs in 23 years (one more year), in 3,298 games (795 more games) while being at bat 12,364 times (3,965 more times).
3. If you take the total number of Babe Ruth's games of 2,503 (his total career) and apply the same number of games to Hank Aaron then he would only have approximately 
   592 Home Runs in 2,576 games which is still 73 more games than Babe Ruth.
To be consistent you must compare apples to apples; # of games played to # of games played and to # of 'At Bats' to # of 'At Bats'. Just as if someone hit 100 Home Runs in one 20 games in a single season while being at bat 35 times then someone else hits 101 home runs in 25 games in a single season while being at bat 65 times; does that break the 100 HR that was set prior?
Now I know that some people will think that this is a racist statement by defaming Hank Aaron,I'm not, but what if Babe Ruth was Black and Hank Aaron was White, would then the same standard be followed? LeeLeeB46 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't talking about home runs per game. We are talking about total number of home runs, period. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New section