Talk:Barry Bonds/Archive 1

message: even though this article is lengthy it lacks breadth and does not cover many topics such as: autographing sales, relations and views by the press, personal life, correlation of stats with drug use, charitable role, strategy in minimiziing errors in fielding, pirates career and workout ethic.  for these reasons the article is also POV stressing only the sf giants stats Anlace 15:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: There is nearly nothing about Bonds's career with the Pittsburgh Pirates in this article. Any Pirates fans out there wanting to correct that? - Abisai
*Sure, the Pirates fans enjoy talking about having let Bonds get away, just like Twins fans enjoy talking about David Ortiz. Wahkeenah 11:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Career

message: i removed the POV portion:
*"It has been suggested by some observers that Bonds' disdain for his fans, in conjunction with his behavior off the field, has negatively impacted his professional reputation (and, by extension, baseball's).  This thesis is arguable, but the fact remains that much less was made of his record-breaking home-run streak than was made of McGwire's, and the 2002 World Series -- in which he was the star -- garnered the worst ratings of any World Series in the history of television."
This needs major work. Kingturtle 01:02 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It is a phenomenon that should be discussed though.  People are happy about Ruth, and to a somewhat lesser extent, McGwire, but generally seem to be much less happy about Bonds. --Delirium 11:26, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)
This is not a racial issue at all.  Compare the love people have for Kirby Puckett to the disdain they show for Barry Bonds.   This is an issue of one being a great, positive person, vesus the other being a self-centered, lying boor.
Good agent he had. He was a good ballplayer and an outwardly garrulous guy. Great and positive are both a stretch. Or does the smoke and fire supposition only apply to "lying boors"?--Buckboard 21:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonds and PR 

message: I think the whole racism idea is BS, and I'll tell you why.  The reason people don't like Bonds is not because he's black, it's because he's really arrogant.  People don't appreciate that, lets think back to 1998.  Mark McGuire hit 70 homeruns, everyone loved him, was it because he's white?  No, it's because he wasn't an arrogant jerk.  Remember Sammy Sosa?  He also his a lot of homeruns in 1998, and everyone loved him too.  Was it because he was a dark-skinned latino?  No, it's cause he wasn't an arrogant jerk.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by user name or ip (talk • contribs) date.
*And, in fact, the fans turned on Sammy after he started to become an arrogant jerk and stopped hitting home runs. For some reason, fans don't easily tolerate an "attitude" from the guys they pay their hard-earned money to see... unless they hit a lot of home runs. Wahkeenah 11:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Legendary pitcher Bob Feller, who has been in baseball's Hall of Fame longer than any other living player, said on Monday controversial superstar Barry Bonds should be kept out of the exclusive club.
should there be a section in the main article about the brewing controversy as to whether Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame.  or is it too early for that? Anthonymendoza 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hall of Fame 

message: What's the point of removing the quotation marks around the first letter of every piece of trivia if we're just going to leave the trivia unchanged?  It has clearly been doctored, as the first letter of each spells out "STEROIDS."
I am going to remove it.  If someone would like to rewrite it in a fair way, feel free to put it back in, but for now it shouldn't be there.
Jwadeg 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section is just coded steroid allegations 

message: Why is the book "Game of Shadows" described as a "conspiracy theory" book? Even wiki states that this is widely regarded as having a negative connotation.
Because it is? That said, I agree that the phrase is POV and needs to be changed.--Buckboard 20:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game of Shadows reference 

message: Does ballball really want to clean up its act?  Are they afraid someone will lead the major league in homers with 38 dingers, a clear indication that steroids (and HGH) made a very real difference.  I don't know why more individuals and experts are not asking ---"Why are they not?"
akula1957
Blood tests for hGH are still in development - while hGH is on the IOC's banned substances list, there is still no approved test being used for it at present time.  Either way, this isn't directly relevant to the Bonds entry. -Dan Szymborski
I'm not quite sure why you would argue that human growth hormone is not relevant to this article - Bonds has clearly been accused of taking HGH (see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/07/sportsline/main1378997.shtml, for example).--Rkstafford 16:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Growth Hormone Not Tested by Baseball  

message: I have removed the disclaimer that began "All information within this section is highly debated..." for several reasons. 1) It is factually incorrect, as there is very little info contained within the section that is disputed at all.  The existence of the Grand Jury testimony is not in dispute.  Barry Bond's reaction to the testimony is not in dispute; 2) the section is already, appropriately, under the heading "Controversy", so there is no need to further instruct the reader that the section is controversial.  I was going to go on but think the fact that the section is factually incorrect, in addition to being redundant, suffices. Levi P. 01:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy

message: Should the rumored perjury charges be mentioned  or should we wait until if/when they are confirmed?Patken4 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perjury charges?

message: I'm of the opinion that the sections "2005 injury problems" and "2006 season his last?" are unnecessary.
"2005 injury problems," due to its size, gives a ridiculous amount of attention to his injury year.  It's nearly as long as the "Resurgence" section, which deals with Bonds's five most productive seasons.  I think that the section on 2005 should either be rewritten into a more general section on his recent troubles, or removed altogether.  Devoting so much time to month by month updates on what was arguably Bonds's least eventful season seems pointless (March, May, August, and September updates are all given in the section).
"2006 season his last" just seems frivolous.  It seems to me that any active baseball player's consideration of retirement should be dealt with in a line or two, not an entire section.  Again, it could easily be collapsed into a rewritten section on his recent troubles.  But it doesn't need its own heading.
Jwadeg 19:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are we going overboard with sections for recent years?

message: This really isn't anything we can measure objectively. Just stick to the facts, boring as that may seem (this is any encyclopedia, not an op-ed column).
::Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words  Cacophony 00:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most famous for... 

message: Legacy section:
"Bonds can easily be mentioned in any discussion of who is the greatest of all time, a short list that may only be six names deep (with Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Willie Mays). Any of the aforementioned players may have excelled beyond Bonds accomplishments in any single category (hitting, fielding, etc...) but when considering the total on-field contributions of a player for home runs, hits, stolen bases, walks, fielding, Bonds is arguably the best ever. Bonds is the greatest left handed batter of his time. Unfortunately, new controversies regarding his accomplishments have arisen; these threaten to give him an entirely different legacy than his numbers would suggest."
I think this badly needs to be cleaned up for POV, and if there's any source for that "top 6 of all time" that needs to be cited, because I'm sure a lot of people could argue other names that should be on that list. --Maelwys 17:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy POV 

message: Someone edited the page and put up pictures that had nothing to do with Barry Bonds. I put up an editing block. CubsFan2006 22:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future, please revert to the correct version, and then edit the page. —Viriditas | Talk 22:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put in a request at WP:RPP. —Viriditas | Talk 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: CubsFan - just so you know, only Administrators should place an editing block. Please refer to policy. --mtz206 17:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Put up vandalism block

message: From WP:V: (emphasis mine)
:Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Please do not simply add unsourced material back in. Find a source first. Simishag 19:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims of racism & need for sources

message: Can someone explain what's going on in this paragraph?
:In a 2005 interview with MLB.com, Bonds stated that he could play into 2007 if he remains healthy and if he is close to Aaron's 755 homeruns, although he also noted that he might retire before then if he is able to win a World Series title. [
First of all, where's this first interview?  Second of all, when did it occur?  The second part has a citation of an article from 06/23/2005.  When in 2005 did the first interview occur?  Metros232 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay, nevermind, it was fixed now.  Metros232 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interviews about future 

message: The final paragraph under the Balco Scandal has no business being in an encyclopedic source.  Bonds' statistics are already on the page in the proper section and the years of likely steroid use are also in the proper section.  Deciding which of the steroids years are "fully juiced" (whatever that means) and then adding the statistic for those years together constitutes original research.  This paragraph should be deleted.
--DSZ 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I removed 2 paragraphs (see ) on the grounds that they were uncited and constituted original research. JDG restored those edits (see ) a few hours later, along with the edit comment "anymore pro-Bonds pov deletions and I petition for page freeze." While that comment doesn't rise to the level of a threat, to me it indicates an unwillingness to compromise on this issue, as does the fact that JDG keeps adding this content back in. The collection of data about the purported "juiced," "fully juiced" and/or "non-juiced" years smells like WP:OR to me: a new, statistical synthesis clearly aimed at proving steroid use by comparing numbers during the periods in question. At the very least, it needs to be cited, and even then I don't think it belongs unless Bonds' injuries are discussed as well (which, incidentally, seems to me a lot better circumstantial evidence than on-field performance). Simishag 04:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no rule about taking agreed-upon facts, but this subset of years is not agreed upon.  What is the source for "1999-2004" being Bonds' fully-juiced years?  Why not 1998-2003?  Or 1999-2006?  There's no generally agreed-upon date for the start of his steroid use or for the ending (if ever) of his steroid use.  So what does it add to what an encyclopedia entry?  The facts of his steroid use and statistics are outlined in the article.  I find you bringing up the "anti/pro-bonds" stuff to be quite puzzling - your paragraph hasn't been deleted multiple times by different people because it's Anti-Bonds but because it's not suitable as-written for an encylopedia.  DSZ 23:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, there is a rule against precisely that. Examine WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F a bit more closely, in particular bullet points 5 and 6. Note also the requirement for citing sources in both of those points, which you have not addressed. You claim that these are "plain" and "clear" conclusions, but I disagree. A statistical analysis of Bonds' career, which purports to show that Bonds was a better player while "juiced," is not the kind of thing that can be done in 1 or 2 paragraphs without resorting to external sources. There are any number of other variables which need to be accounted for, and any number of counter-arguments to your analysis, which is why we don't do that sort of thing here. Incidentally, I've been through similar arguments recently on NBA player pages, in which a user, who was clearly a fan with an agenda, has added data that, while factual, is presented in an obviously biased way. Simishag 04:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The obvious thing that user needs to do is to find a source that says the same thing. Maybe the recent book about Bonds, et al., would be a good place to quote from. Wahkeenah 04:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The BALCO Scandal

message: The first paragraph needs to be cleaned up.  The Clear and The Cream are capitalized here and nowhere else and the description of Bonds' testimony is far less accurate than in the appropriate section below.
--DSZ 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's too much detail for the lead anyway. The lead should mention that Bonds is at the center of a scandal, but it should not go into salacious details. Simishag 04:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Paragraph

message: Bonds' may be indicted within week 
SAN FRANCISCO - Barry Bonds' legal team is preparing for the San Francisco slugger to be indicted as soon as next week and has begun plotting his defense. Attorney Laura Enos told The Associated Press on Friday that Bonds, second on the career home run list, could be charged with tax evasion and perjury.Anthonymendoza 14:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bond's lawyers expect indictment soon 

message: I removed it.  The "please note" that Bonds hasn't actually been indicted is POV, and unnecessary as it makes it clear in the paragraph above that he hasn't been indicted.  There doesn't seem to be any need to "remind" readers that he hasn't been convicted of anything.  Also, the line about the lead prosecutor potentially leaking information doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether or not Bonds perjured himself or commited tax fraud; seems to be in there as just a knock on the prosecutor.  I think the line about the alleged girlfriend could stay, but as it stood there was no source to support it.  Oh, and in a minor edit, I changed the tag for "US Attorney's Office" because it was linking to the US District Court page.JCO312 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perjury Investigation Issues SubSection

message: These events have lead some to questions the MLB's motives in regards to this issue. Specifically, some feel that the MLB is hoping an indictment of Bonds would shift attention a way from what many believe is the rampant abuse of steroids and other illegal performance enhancing substances in Major League Baseball.
this paragraph makes no sense, besides being blatantly POV.  MLB has nothing to do with the ongoing investigation.  and how would an indictment "shift attention away" from the steroids issue, since if Bonds is charged with perjury, it would be for lying to a grand jury about using steroids.  wouldn't an indictment further bolster the impending report by George Mitchell?  this paragraph should be removed. does anyone disagree?Anthonymendoza 01:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Section 

message: there has been some recent changing of the intro regarding barry bonds' status as one of the top 3 hitters of all time. i believe its generally accepted that ruth, williams and bonds are the 3 best but some people like to edit in other hitters. we should reach a consensus and people's thoughts on the matter should be listed below. --Bucsrsafe 17:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to be a saber-geek here, but valuing batting average over slugging percentage is POV. I don't think it's arguable that Bonds is one of the best power hitters of all time, but as to what makes the best overall hitter ... unless you think the term "hitter" immediately connotes "for average", which I wouldn't necessarily say is the case. Woodshed 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just the average, he smacked lots of home runs as well. And Ted Williams learned from him, so he apparently had something going for him. The fact is, you can't really rank them purely statistically, because there are other factors. And saying definitively that someone is in the "top 3" is too close to call. Top 10, top 20, maybe. Wahkeenah 20:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: This page needs serious cleaning-up. Citing the minutae of Barry's stats (while impressive) in the body article isn't necessary. There's a table at the end of the page for that. Plus, we don't do it for any other player, why Barry? Plus the tone is excessively laudatory and slightly POV.The Invisible Man 19:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: This whole artcile seems like hagiograhy. Time will out the facts. TrulyTory 12:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saint Barry. King of the Juice. The Immaculate Deception. etc. Wahkeenah 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And he'll never tell, nor will his supplier, who is willing to risk jail time for contempt of court rather than spill the beans on Barry. Wahkeenah 05:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Grand jury testimony is secret. Were you there? Wahkeenah 17:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Steroids

message: There is a Barry Street located near the world's first oil refinery in Bradford, Pennsylvania.  Most people have some interest in the place, and Mr. Bonds is probably no exception.  00:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  misconceptions about Mr. Bonds' interests 

message: Why is there no section on Early Life here? I could have sworn before there was info about his high school days at Junipero Serra in San Mateo and more detail on his college years. Also there is little mention of his father.
*Feel free to improve on that situation. Wahkeenah 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Life

message: Is the times on base record in the other records subsection official? The given total seems to be lacking. Does reaching by error or fielders choice count as a time on base?TonyTheTiger 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe not. Reaching on errors and fielders choices are both treated as failure to reach base in batting average and on-base percentage calculations. If you were measuring some sort of "absolute" streak of times on base you might count them, but such a record would be unofficial, I think. Zakath 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other records

message: I think this should be added, any opinions? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Bonds&oldid=80149811
This has led to allegations of racism  among the media due to preferential treatment of Jason Giambi (who is white) who admitted to knowingly using Steriods . 
GrandWizard 04:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the one who removed this the first time, I should say that I don't mind the mention about Giambi all that much.  My real objection was adding the fact that Bonds is black to the very first sentence of the article.  I don't think that adds any value, and might be likely to stir up more controversy, at least among editors.  If it could be mentioned down in the same section in the same way ("Bonds (who is black) yadda yadda Giambi (who is white)"), then I think it's a valid addition.  Either way, thanks for checking here and attempting to build consensus before just starting an edit war.  A refreshing change.  -- dakern74 (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's worth including, but we need an actual allegation of racism over this issue. The first link GrandWizard provided (San Diego Tribune) never mentions Giambi; it's about Bonds' statement that Boston was a racist city. The second link also doesn't support the allegation of racism. If we can source it though, then I'd say put it in. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allegation of racism provided here .. 
Victim of Racism
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2392019  
I don't believe that Balco should be included in the first paragraph, but since it is, vicimization may very well be necessary as well.  In terms of him being black, I believe that it is as important to list him as an African American athlete, just as Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson are black, and Jim Thorpse is native american.  GrandWizard 05:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo. Just make sure that whatever you add (you should do the honors) indicates that Torii Hunter, a centerfielder for the Minnesota Twins and a contemporary of Bonds, is the one who raised the allegation (rather than a vague "some believe" type of phrasing). Good work. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: feel free to add in the Torii Hunter to the part of the sentence.  You could also substitute Mr Hunter for Dave Stewert whom was a baseball star.  GrandWizard 03:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I took out the link to the San Diego Trib (Bonds saying Boston was a racist city), and a link that pointed to reader comments on Bonds' treatment. I also converted the two remaining links to . Looks good right now. Ultimately, that graf probably should leave the intro for the Controversy section. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Giambi article, at a quick glance, is a mess. I saw a lot of original research in there. I'm going to stick with this article for a while until we clean some of it up. As for the link you included, what does that article tell us that isn't currently cited in the article? It appears to be much more about Giambi (and would make a nice citation in his article) than about Bonds. What did you see there that you thought was new? | Mr. Darcy talk 05:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Racism 

message: Greg Anderson is going back to jail.  will he serve a year in prison or testify? 74.140.208.88 01:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anderson back to jail

message: I was looking for information on the "U.S." nickname, but didn't find any. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.1.8 (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname 

message: When was the change made for it to say "Former Teams" for the team info...its on every baseball player page and I think it's AWFUL. It should have never changed...if a player is on a team current I think it should still say (2005 - Present) or whatever year they joined...I can just see SO much confusion on years people arrived (with the whole trading thing...or arriving to play the year after) and i just think it was a terrible change. So yeah...when was this made? :( ChopAtwa 09:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not really related to barry but... 

message: I added a small section for Game of Shadows due to its importance in the Bonds history for a couple of reasons: it needs one due to its importance, the SI cover in the article only passes fair use criteria if it depicts the issue's mention in the article, and it seemed odd to reference a totally obscure book (Love Me, Hate Me) and not the more famous one. Quadzilla99 13:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Game of Shadows'' 

message: Someone posted a question on the help desk about the number of succession boxes on this page, and I agree it's unusual. Of course we're dealing with an unusual athlete here, so I'd merely suggest that a list of his awards be made with links to the relevant awards (e.g. Player of the Month), where users can easily search for their sportsmen and find more info (eg the players who got the award in the two previous months). Xiner (talk, email) 05:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The succession boxes 

message: Is it me or  does it seem like every spring training he sounds even more gay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.194.35.97 (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring Training 

message: Who thinks Bonds took steroids?
I Do
I second it
Me too
Who doesn't —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.194.35.97 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just compare his rookie year pictures to his current pictures.  That can't ALL be because he "works out alot".  The man is a steroid abuser and a cheater, plain and simple. Jmlk17 18:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Greatest Hitter of All Time? 

message: I have never heard that Barry and Reggie are related and I am an avid baseball fan.  I am fairly certain they are not first cousins.  Distant cousins? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check  —siroχo 06:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the other sources say they are distant cousins, including this one with quotes from Reggie Jackson - http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070707/sp_nm/baseball_yankees_bonds_dc  If they were first cousins, we'd be hearing all about it right now, and we're not. Celedor15 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reggie Jackson 

message: I recently came to the entry to learn about Barry Bonds, a baseball player and find myself in a completely unsane series of off-the-wall discussions in the talk section designed to further certain POV instead of trying to get away from POV itself - I was wondering if this is the regular stuff of discourse 'twixt wannabe editors who won't accept the notions of neutrality, etc. in their contributions?
For example, the spam sort of edit ("son of Gary Coleman" - "gay stripper") got eliminated minutes after its placement and that's encouraging - BUT the business about "3 greatest hitters..." keeps being tinkered with unsuccessfully as the editors mistake a prohibition on POV for a call to simply amend (or simply re-insert) blatant POV violations.
69.19.14.22 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this sort of thing rampant in Wikipedia? 

message: Under accomplishments, under the number of MVPs, there is this paragraph about how Ruth got robbed and could've won five MVPs in a row possibly. It seems it only exists to say Ruth was better than Bonds. Maybe this would belong on Ruth's page, but not here, I feel. Unless someone can give a major reason it belongs on Bonds' list of accomplishments, I say everything after about the second sentence of it goes. Truce m3 12:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so much Ruth info? 

message: I followed the reference for the following:
In a 2005 interview with MLB.com, Bonds stated that he planned to play in 2007 if he remains healthy and if he is close to Aaron's 755 home runs, although he also noted that he might retire before then if he is able to win a World Series title . Bonds could play in 2007 to catch Aaron June 23, 2005
But I couldn't find anywhere where Bonds said he'd retire if he won a series, so I removed that part of the sentence. Feel free to re-add if you can source this information!
Audiodude 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couldn't find "Retire if I win the series" quote 

message: The first two sentences of the 'Major League Career' section read "In 1986, Bonds finished 6th in Rookie of the Year voting, hitting 5 home runs and stealing 7 and 1/3 bases. He hit 10 home runs in his sophomore season, along with 3 and 4/50 stolen bases and 9 RBIs."  These statistics are way off, according to the Baseball Almanac (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=bondsba01).  I'm changing them to what they should be.  biggins 00:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stealing 7 1/3 bases? 

message: Bulking up is one thing, but no one's skull keeps growing past around age 18. Someone should post a timeline of pictures with this mans head to show what doing roids does to you.
:No, they shouldn't. MLB has the most strenuous testing policy in sports and Bonds has never tested positive. The only "proof" that he took steroids is an alleged grand jury leak. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Faithlessthewonderboy 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mans SKULL 

message: you might like to mention that he became the first national league player to get 40 and 40 and the second person in history..........
Msjayhawk 19:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  40 and 40 

message: Holds record for single season on-base percentage with a .609 average, slugging .863, and walks 232.
Msjayhawk 19:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To add under Accomplishments......... 

message: I find it interesting that the pages are so narrowly focused on Major League baseball...there ARE others that play baseball, after all, beyond the US. Bonds might break the US career home run record...but that isn't the WORLD career record.
: If you took the time to even read then you would've saw that the records are all referred as an MLB record. The pages focus on Major League Baseball because Bonds is a player in the MLB. The US record IS the World record, because the fields are much smaller in Japan & the Japanese record is always being disputed because of that.
::Actually, no they aren't. It says world record. And the US record being the world record is YOUR opinion. 'Always being disputed' means there is no consensus.
There is a reason that the best players from around the world come to the US to play in Major League Baseball. With all due respect to Sadaharu Oh, MLB are the only records that matter. Faithlessthewonderboy 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major League 

message: I've rewritten the intro, mostly by moving things to other sections. The old intro was too long, causing vital information (like the BALCO scandal) to be buried deep in the intro after a litany of statistics that really can be summarized with "great player." The new intro functions much better in terms of WP:LS. Phil Sandifer 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be established without the inclusion of every statistic. The point of the intro is to quickly cover the major aspects of the subject. For Bonds, this means basic biographic information, a note that he holds many impressive records with mention of his most famous (his home runs), and the BALCO scandal. To put the mass of statistics in the intro is unnecessary - such material should be covered in the body of the article, and only briefly summarized in the intro (See WP:LS). The intro, contrary to the writing cliche, should tell, not show - later sections are for detail. Furthermore, including that many statistics serves to put the BALCO scandal off the first page of text for many browsers. This attempt to de-emphasize less glamorous facts of the subject's life is not acceptable under WP:NPOV. Phil Sandifer 12:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with User:FT2, Per Lead section guideline, we're looking for a a concise overview. User:Phil Sandifer's bold edit was definitely a step in the right direction.  --Tony Sidaway 02:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro rewrite

message: Is anybody going to ever test this guy for drugs? Its an outrage to see a steroid user surpass someone as great as Aaron who did the same without drugs. All I have to say is "*". Spawn Man 06:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: are you really, truly, that clueless? he's tested regularly. he's never failed a steroids test. plonk. Aaron wrote in his autobiography that he took 'greenies' - amphetamines. willie mays did the same. countless others did as well. and babe ruth was all tanked up on sodium nitrates in all the 'dogs he ate. finding heroes without flaws is a difficult thing. Anastrophe 07:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to attack me to state your point ya know. I never asked had he failed a steroid test - I said had anyone tested him for drugs, more explicitly all types of drugs, so that everything can be ruled out. I can find lots of heroes that don't have to take drugs, whatever they are, to be heroic. To say that you can't is a cop out and our children should never be exposed to "heroes" such as Barry Bonds. Spawn Man 07:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i didn't say one has to take drugs to be a hero, but thanks for putting words in my mouth then attacking me for them. clearly, facts aren't of much interest to you - you've decided bonds is guilty of taking drugs, even though he's never tested positive for them (steroids, though as the article notes, he tested positive once for amphetimines, and believe he was 'spiked'). whatever. i don't buy into the 'our children' argument, so that's wasted on me, athletes are entertainers, there's lots better people to hold up as heroes, like the guys getting shot in the ass overseas so we can argue about mindless crap like this. have a nice life! Anastrophe 07:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone noted on ESPN recently, if steroids don't matter, then the records no longer matter, either. They're bogus, pure and simple. Baseball Bugs 15:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so based on that, then we can assume that you'd be in favor of stripping willie mays of his #3 spot on the all time home run list and his place in cooperstown (used amphetamines), stripping hank aaron of his place as #2 in the all time home run list and his place in cooperstown (used amphetamines)? Anastrophe 16:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone else notice that after the whole BALCO thing came out of the closet, and Barry et al started to get subpeonaed and questioned by a grand jury, that all his stats went down.  He went from a league smashing 78 home run season, to what....26 this year?  How much has his BA dropped? --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hey, check this out: have a look at Babe Ruth - check the statistics box. he went from 49 home runs in 1930, to only 6 in 1935 - his last year playing. wow, it's just like bonds! clear evidence of steroids! or not. here's a big clue: correlation does not equal causation. Anastrophe 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You failed to mention that in 1935 Babe Ruth only played 28 games.  --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's why i wrote it. you're taking bare statistics and claiming they prove something regarding steriods. they do not. Anastrophe 19:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, take this into consideration.  In the 25 years that Barry Bonds has played baseball professionally, not a single time has he ever had a 50 home run season, or even a 60 home run season.  In 2000 he hit a career high 49 home runs, then the year following (2001 record breaking year) he hits 73.  No one naturally can do that.  --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "No one naturally can do that". based upon what science? you could use the same flawed argument to claim that nobody can hit 500 home runs in their career. or 600. or 700. i can't do that. 99.9999999999% or so of the human race can't do that. therefore, it's impossible? Anastrophe 19:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: For both men, age was catching up. Bonds was clearly cheating, but so were a lot of others. Selig is as much to blame as anyone, since baseball benefited financially from it. Baseball Bugs 17:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: steroids can't improve hand-eye coordination, and that is what divides home run hitters from also-rans. and are you claiming that he's still cheating, even though he's undergoing rigorous, random testing for steroids? if his accomplishments are due to cheating, then he should have stopped hitting home runs altogether - or they should have dropped off to only a handful, rather than the steady production he's still putting out as a man in his 40's. Anastrophe 19:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: we're discussing matters directly relevant to the article. your suggestion is off-base. if we were talking about whether bonds voted for bush or kerry, then you'd have a basis. Anastrophe 19:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're talking about Barry Bonds and your opinions about him, you're not talking about the article Barry Bonds. Shall I go through every comment in this section and explain why? It really shouldn't be necessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, it's about what to say about the steroid issue within the article. Free discussion leads to article improvements. Baseball Bugs 20:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing? 

message: Unless is stated that way by MLB an asterisk should not be placed in the total of home runs hitted by BB... He's never been convicted of steroid use, and even if he is that doesn't mean an asterisk should be placed. Omar Santos 15:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no drug questions raised during Aaron's pursuit of the record. Aside from the racism factor, the only questions had to do with the fact that he had way many more at-bats than Ruth did, which is a stats question; and that he was advantaged by being at the higher altitude of Atlanta, which was not his fault. Baseball Bugs 17:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asterisk?