Talk:Barry Bonds

GA Fail (March 2008)

• "In 1986, Bonds finished 6th in Rookie of the Year voting, hitting 16 home runs and stealing 36 bases. He hit 25 home runs in his second season, along with 32 stolen bases and 59 RBIs. Bonds improved in 1988, hitting .283 with 24 home runs. Bonds started off his 1989 campaign well, but tapered off quickly, finishing with 19 homers and 58 RBIs." - Source?Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• The vast majority of the "San Francisco Giants (1993–2007)" section needs a lot more sources.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• "2005 season" part needs a lot more sources.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• The vast majority of the "2006 season" part needs more sourcing.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• "2007 season" part looks OK with sources, but this part needs source: "Bonds concluded the 2007 season with a .276 batting average, 28 home runs, and 66 RBIs in 126 games and 340 at bats. At the age of 43, he led both leagues in walks with 132."Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 12:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Need source for the last part of the "Players' Union" section.
  • Could not find source, but hid text in comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Bonds on Bonds" needs sourcing and a little expansion.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Personal life" needs expanding to at least a decent paragraph. Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Where do all the facts from the "Career Distinction" section come from? Needs sourcing.
• We don't need that many links in the "See also" part IMO.
  • I have removed the only two that don't have articles. I think everyone on any of the remaining lists should have it linked in their see also section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm failing the article, as finding sources for some of these may take quite a bit of time. Re-nominate at WP:GAN when the problems have been rectified. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

TV movie

I don't think I'm crazy. I distinctively remember, as a kid, Barry Bonds playing a lawyer in a TV movie years ago, I think when he was playing for Pittsburgh. But I haven't been able to find anything. Am I going crazy? Can anyone help me out here? --JerryLewisOverdrive (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if you are crazy or not, but you are not correct on this. If he was in any kind of movie, it would be listed on his IMDB profile. He was in a few movies/shows though. Nothing around the time you are talking though. He appeared in Rookie of the Year in 1993, an episode of Beverly Hills 90210, Moment of Truth: Broken Pledges, 2 episodes of Renegade, and Nash Bridges. You claimed he was a lawyer on a TV movie when he played for Pittsburgh. He ended his career in Pittsburgh in 1992, so it is impossible, since his first credit is in 1993. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.20.63 (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you may be right. Like wikipedia, IMBD is not always accurate. He may of gotten an uncredited appearance. However, there are some reasons why not. 1. Bonds isn't in any video games, let alone movies. 2. May of been another guy named Barry Bonds?

Lead paragraph

There's so much information about this guy, so much stuff he's done and "hasn't" done...and this article starts with who he's related to?! Grsz^talk 21:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Current Status

This article says that Barry Bonds is a Major League Baseball player. However, he is not employed by any Major League Baseball team. I would suggest that being employed as a player by a MLB team is a requirement... to be considered an MLB player. There are other players who desire or have desired to be employed, and are or have been free agents, but are not on anyone's roster so are not MLB players. At the very least, his status should be reflected that he is not currently contracted to any particular team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.180.242 (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Are you saying that a free agent is not a Major League Baseball Player??? A guy's contract runs up, so for 3 months or so while he is waiting to be signed, he is not a player? That is abusrd. "a MLB player who is currently a free agent" is a fine description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.20.63 (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Barry Bonds convicted of obstruction of justice

Los Angeles Times | April 13, 2011 | 2:38 p.m.

Home-run king Barry Bonds today was convicted on one felony charge of obstruction of justice by a federal jury in San Francisco.

The conviction of Bonds, a superstar when he played for the San Francisco Giants, came after a three-week trial and a government probe that spanned nearly seven years into Bond's alleged use of performance enhancing drugs.

The judge declared a mistrial on three other felony counts.

Bonds was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for denying under oath in 2003 that he had knowingly used steroids or other banned drugs and for maintaining that his personal trainer, Greg Anderson, had never injected him with a performance-enhancing drug. Jurors had been deliberating since Friday.

The probe that ensnared Bonds previously produced convictions of four other athletes in addition to the principals of a Bay Area laboratory that was distributing illegal steroids, the government's original target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.91 (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I am sad to say that I have failed the article for a variety reasons.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Here are a few examples of poor prose: "...Bonds reached out and flipped a Chris Young (of the San Diego Padres) pitch just over the wall to the left of straightaway center field for career home run 735." Flipped? "On November 15, 2007, Bonds was indicted." Indicted for what? "Bonds finished with 19 homers and 58 RBIs, but he finished 2nd in NL with 14 outfield assists." Why but? These are not the only examples. An editor or two needs to run through the article and fix the prose problems.

   Examples above fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance:

   While the article is too long, the WP:LEAD is too short. In the 2006 season section, there are images at the same height, which crunches the text down.

   Jordan - 37.2 KB, 6493 words. Gretzky - 36.4 KB and 6332 words. Bonds which is deeemed too long 30.2 KB and 5350 words.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

   I have started beefing up the WP:LEAD. It will get better.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

   Images have been fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   There are a couple of unsourced statements in the 2007 season subsection, but overall the sourcing isn't too bad.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   See above in 2a.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The 2006 season and 2007 season subsections are too large. They need to have unnecessary details removed such that only relevant information is left. For instance, in the 2007 season subsection, we don't need a game-by-game, homer-by-homer breakdown of Bonds' chase for the home run record.

   I will attempt to pare it down, but I think these were very important seasons in need of in-depth accounting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Watch out for stuff like this: "Upon his return, Bonds mostly continued his pre-injury dominance at the plate, hitting home runs in four consecutive games from September 18, 2005 to September 21, 2005 and finishing with five homers in only 14 games." That's poor prose, and the use of the word "dominance" is POV.

   fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Other than petty vandalism, the article is stable.

(but people are not allowed to edit this article, so no wonder it is stable. Also, very out of date, for same reason!

1. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The first image in the article is not tagged and does not have a fair-use rationale.

   I swapped it out for a properly licensed image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is the third time in just over three months that this article has failed a GA review. I would like to suggest that this article be extensively improved before it is brought back to WP:GAC. Good luck with the improvements! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

   Third time in three months - yes. Same article - no. Look at each version to see how much work was done between each.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Season 1985 in venezuela

Turkish development. The agreement between the Pirates and the Magallanes Navigators allowed the participation of the prospectus buccaneer in the Venezuelan Professional Baseball League. With barely 21 years, Bonds came out for the first time U.S. to wear the shirt of one of the most popular clubs in the country.

"It was a kind and very quiet worker, for anything problematic," recalled Gregorio Machado, coach of MAgallenes (turks ship) at that time. "He came to work on the run in the foundation and its fildeo." "It was not very sociable. It was very quiet, "added the coach, who said that the young American" who was not going to be a phenomenon, but it had potential, because he was a player of great projection. "

Angel Escobar, the first bat of that club magallanero Bonds described as "a skinny body with athletic," which "had a level of maturity in his game." "He was a simple person, very focused on their things, not selfish, but very involved in what I had to do," said the former grandeliga Creole. "I shared a lot with him and saw that it was a person with a lot of confidence in itself."

Despite that nobody had a complaint from him, Bonds went home before the campaign leading 85-86, leaving average of .244 (160-39), with 32 scored, eight doubles, a triple, seven home runs, 23 Towed and seven swindled in 44 commitments.

"We surprised a lot to leave, because he was performing. I suppose to be the first choice for the Pirates in the draft had something to do, "said Escobar. "He had some discomfort in his shoulder and following the launch of it went," said Machado. "In addition, it was the first time I was away from home, I was very young, and already agreed to leave in December to be with his family at Christmas."

Its passage through Venezuela left him very good impression of Latino ballplayers, with whom he has taken well, even after being a superstar. "With me were ported from the best," said via telephone from the U.S., Wilson Alvarez, who shared with the gardener in San Francisco in 1997. "With Latinos, and in general with their peers is good, what happens is another impression because it creates a lot of pressure and has as many eyes on him, sometimes reflected, as it puts a shield, and cares." Alvarez, who describes the jonronero as "the best hitter in the Major Leagues," said that during the year of his retirement in 2005, requested an autographed suvenir. "I told him, 'Look, I would have signed something of yours,' and the same bat he used in the game I signed it and told me, 'takes, here it is'. He wrote: 'For Wilson, God bless you,' and I signed it, "recalled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.217.249.136 (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The next to last clause in the following sentence in the introduction goes beyond being misleading and is factually false.

"In 2007, he was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice concerning the government investigation of BALCO, and despite DNA evidence linking him to performance-enhancing drugs and the BALCO labs, jury selection has been postponed indefinitely."

There is no "DNA evidence". What there is is "disputed drug tests". If there was "DNA evidence" that linked Barry Bonds to these drug tests the defense team would not have been able to get the judge to exclude them and the prosecution team would thus not need to be appealing to have them reinstated. These "drug tests" were excluded because the prosecution did not have a witness with direct knowledge (non Hearsay) that was willing to say that these tests were of blood or urine samples provided by Barry Bonds. If "DNA evidence" of this existed the prosecution would not need such a witness and the judge would not have excluded these "disputed drug tests".

giantsrainman (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

misleading intro, looks biased

Bonds admittted to using steroids, only that he didn't know they were steroids at the time. The intro conflates two different issues: number one: his using steroids which is NOT alleged but factual, with 2. allegations he LIED under oath about such usage. The lies are alleged, but his steroid usage is not. Completely NPOV. Where is the untro mention of the actual steroid use which he has mentioned?66.190.29.150 (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Entire intro has a massive pro-Bonds anti-truth bias. The man is a cheater, a liar, and a criminal. All of these are objective facts and should be mentioned. Wetman88 (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for sharing your opinion. however, this is wikipedia, not wikipinion. if you have some material from WP:RS to contribute, please do. but spouting your opinions here isn't helpful. for example, bonds has not been convicted of any crime, therefore by simple logic, he is not a criminal until such time as he is. your opinion that he is so is noted. but meaningless to this article. Anastrophe (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Major premise: Taking steroids is cheating (MLB rules) Minor Premise: Barry Bonds admits to taking steroids. Conclusion: Barry Bonds is a cheater.

Major premise: Saying something that isn't true is lying. Minor Premise: Barry Bonds untruthfully said that he had not taken steroids. Conclusion:Barry Bonds is a liar.

Major premise: People are indicted by federal grand juries for committing crimes. Minor premise: Barry Bonds was indicted by a federal grand jury. Conclusion: Barry Bonds is a criminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman88 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

highly recommend not pursuing a degree in law. an indictment does not make him a criminal.Anastrophe

And an acquittal does not make him innocent of the crime, it just means he was not convicted. p.s. Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Jrgilb (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk) 18:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Barry Bonds has never admitted to knowingly taking steroids. There is no proof, other than that he got a little bigger since his early 20's. I have also gotten bigger since my early 20's, does that mean that I have taken steroids? Innocent until proven guilty, kids. Undervenued (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Public opinion clearly supports the notion that Bonds deliberately juiced for many years, and the circumstantial evidence of Bonds' cheating is overwhelming. His performance trajectory -- natural career arc until 1999 (basically, a rich man's Eddie Murray), when it bends back upward in a freakish manner for the remainder of his playing career -- is a smoking gun, just like it is for Clemens. His growing hat size -- canteloupe grows into a watermelon -- is another smoking gun. His obituary will mention the words steroids and non-Hall of Famer in the first sentence. Suggest that contributors stop trying to whitewash this jackass, and find "reliable sources" that tell the true story of his career, which is well known and not really debated by anyone except Bonds' family members and sycophants. Jrgilb (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Cheating:

1. "Barry Bonds:Cheater" from CBS, yea I kinda think that is reliable. [1]
2. "Dear Barry Bonds, You are either an outright cheater or very stupid" from the USA Today [2]
3. "Yes, Barry Bonds is a cheater. He is a cheater of the worst sort" [3]

Lying:

1. "It's clear, Barry Bonds' a liar" New York Daily News, another pretty freakin' reliable source. [4]
2. "Barry Lamar Bonds is a bad man" Baseball Digest [5]
3. "but Bonds is a liar, a cheater, a whiner and a bad influence on America's youth" Mark Barnes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman88 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't tell me that you believe everything that you read. Who are you, David St. Hubbins from Spinal Tap? Just because some horrible reporter from the New York Daily News says something, doesn't make it fact.

all of which are opinion pieces. not reliable sources for claims of fact. what's your hurry? if bonds ends up being convicted of lying, cheating, etc, then it can go in the article. until then, your opinions are noted, but not admissible to this WP:BLP.Anastrophe (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I've been reading this article and a lot about baseball (actually I have some questions about wins and runs that I'd like answered, but anyway) and I can't believe that the word cheat isn't mentioned in this article once. The man is involved in a trial and it has been asserted by numerous individuals who had no reason to lie that he has taken illegal steroids to gain an unfair advantage over his peers and gone to extreme lengths to cover it up and deny it. It seems that the article is attempting to whitewash the fact that he violated the rules and turn it into something were the steroids just slowed down his ageing and kept him good. He's been publcly labelled a cheat numerous times and there is considerable controversy about it, which this article goes to great lengths to minimise. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

He isn't involved in a trial. People always have reason to lie: personal gain. These people could be placing all of their heat onto Barry to take it away from others, or even themselves. There is no thing as a selfless act. Undervenued (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

anon user

trial postponed until summer yet article says it started yesterday.

Go ahead and make the change :) Kingturtle (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How is an anonymous user supposed to be able to make changes to a protected wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.195.66 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Perjury section

The last paragraph of the "perjury investigation and federal indictment" section mentions (as of the current revision) that Bonds is expected to go to court on March 2, and that he is not expected to go to jail, because a pro cyclist in a similar case only received house arrest. What is the pro cyclist's name? Did the trial occur on March 2 as scheduled? If so, what happened? If not, when will it be now?

This section seriously needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeantLuke (talk • contribs) 15:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. Named pro-cyclist. The article had already updated the current state of the trial. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 08:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

1. Home runs in a single season (73), 2001
2. Home runs against different pitchers (449)
3. Home runs since turning 40 years old (74) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.34.55 (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Add single-season OPS to Records Held

On-base plus slugging (OPS) (1.422), 2004

[OPS is a good measure of over-all hitting prowess. One might note that Bonds has 3 of the top 4 seasons and he and Babe Ruth each have 4 of the top 10; the other 2 belong to Ted Williams. Baseball-reference.com is a good source for this sort of info.] --Davidand (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for career end

If he never formally announces his retirement is he a player for life? We have to draw the line somewhere, without a formal declaration. I say two years of absence, plus his agent's emphatic statement, is enough. So just what do the rest of you think should be the standard? Saros136 (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He couldn't be a regular player even if he came back. He is close to 46 and the eyes and legs go by that age (in baseball) - true there are a very few exceptions. A DH job if he is lucky. But he would want more money than MLB teams would be willing to pay. They are also hesitating because of all the scandals and time in court he will be doing ( I'm not saying he is innocent or not, just saying they don't want to pay good money for what if's) (PershingBoy)63.3.10.130 (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal Life & premarital agreement

Facts in the article regarding the divorce and premarital agreement (PMA) to Sun Bonds are factually incorrect. For one, the Sun and Barry Bonds divorce escapade took years, not months, ended up in front of the Cal Supreme Court, and did not end until 2001, at the earliest. It also ended with special rules from the Cal Supreme Court in how to deal with PMA and then changes to California law, specifically to deal with what many felt was injustice under the law to Sun Bonds. I would also tie this to any article that might exist for California Community Property.

California community property has a rule in place for PMA entered into before Jan. 2002 that is named the Bonds Rule, after this case. :-) It was promulgated by the California Supreme Court when it had to deal with the divorce case between Barry and Sun.

I am not sure about the final determination (likely settled) but the Appellate Court, after the Supreme Court remanded the case, held this as its final conclusion: "We reverse that part of the judgment finding that Barry did not transmute the Murietta, Pennsylvania, and Atherton properties into community property. We remand for the trial court to divide the community property consistent with this opinion and to redetermine the issue of the duration of spousal support. Sun is awarded costs on appeal." --> in plain English: Sun still had a property interest in the 3 homes, still was eligible for support, and it was sent back down to the family court to make a final determination. The agreement was valid but strictly construed and not as favorable to Barry as the initial judge had held. --> Source: 2001 WL 1191386 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.) (written by Judge Lamden)

As for the Supreme Court Case, In re Marriage Bonds, 24 Cal.4th 1, (2000) (written by Chief Justice George), it held that there are a number of factors that go into whether the PMA is valid. Those include (1) the amount of time between the execution of the PMA and the wedding; 2) whether the PM was expected or was a surprise when it was presented; 3) whether the other party had legal counsel or the opportunity to consult counsel; 4) any inequiety in bargaining power between the parties; 5) disclosure; and 6) whether the parties understood the nature and effect of the agreement.

Almost immediately after the Cal Supremes spoke, the Cal legislature passed Family Code 1615 that set the bar high and specifically provided for defenses in the law that Sun used against Barry. Two key parts. Voluntary means there is no fraud, coercion, and lack of knowledge. Second, a PMA is not voluntary unless the party seeking to enforce the PMA (Barry) showed that the other party (Sun): 1) had independent legal counsel or waived her right to counsel in writing; 2) had at least seven days to review the agreement; and 3) was fully advised in writing of all the rights and obligations that attached to executing the PMA. Of course, this does not apply to the Sun/Barry case but it was specifcally meant to prevent similar injustice to occur as a result of similar circumstances. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=01001-02000&file=1610-1617 http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?sImagePath=Related_Statutes.gif&sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/Rules%20%26%20Regulations/Related%20Statutes&sHeading=Family%20Code&sCatHtmlPath=calbar_rs_rules.jsp&sRule=57169

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Geodanny (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 

is or was?

C'mon, it's long since overdue to change this from "is a player" to is a former player. As it was so well put on SI.com today, His odds of being signed as a free agent? Zero. His odds of being hired as a major league coach or broadcaster? Zero. It's over, man. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

verb tense

The second sentence of the article reads:

Bonds has played for the Pittsburgh Pirates and San Francisco Giants from 1986 to 2007.

It should read:

Bonds played for the Pittsburgh Pirates and San Francisco Giants from 1986 to 2007.

Could someone fix it? 98.82.23.93 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

He's not officially retired yet, is he? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's almost a certainty that he is done, and we should reinstate his agent's statement that it is. Saros136 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I see that the agent's statement is included later. Saros136 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not, but that's irrelevant. He's not currently playing for either team, it is not known that he will play for them in the future. The current wording makes use of the present perfect progressive tense, which "is used to describe events or actions that have begun at some point in the past and continue through the present". While he continues to be (in theory) an active major leaguer, he is not continuing to be either a Pirate or a Giant——

Wait a minute--belay that line of reasoning . . .

I realize now that the problem is not the tense, it's the rest of the sentence. Strike the words "from 1986 to 2007" and just end the sentence with a full stop after "Giants", and all will be well. I can explain further if you need, but I think you'll intuitively see that it reads better this way.98.82.23.93 (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If he never officially retires, is he a player forever? Saros136 (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can make a comeback if someone is willing to hire them. But he's going on 46 and hasn't played since 2007, so it's not looking very likely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I find the following statement in the article to be fairly NPOV "Some do not expect Bonds to get prison time after pro cyclist Tammy Thomas received house arrest and probation for similar crimes in the BALCO scandal." This statement in many ways assumes that Bonds will be found guilty of steroid use. In light of the decision that test evidence against him is inadmissible in court (http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/06/11/barry.bonds.steroids/index.html?hpt=T2), it is certainly more likely than not that him being found guilty in any court of law is at most less than likely to happen. I believe it should at the most be removed, or at least rewritten along the lines of "Even if Bonds were to be found guilty of the crimes he is accused of, it is unlikely he would serve prison time as pro cyclist Tammy Thomas..." etc. Friendlyone111 (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Barry Bonds 756th Home Run

I want to add a link to to another Wikipedia page in the "See also" section titled "Barry Bonds 756th Home Run" Awolf58 (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barry Bonds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Let me start by saying good on you for undertaking such a massive target. An article which is, simultaneously, on a major record breaker, one of the most historically important figures in a field, one of the most controversial figures in that field, and a BLP all in one.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   On 1a I would suggest as others have in other reviews that the prose be looked over with a fine-toothed comb. Particularly in an article on a topic as edgy as this I'd be especially careful of weasel words in a sentence like "Some do not expect Bonds to get prison time after". Why not simply be clear and say "Writers with the NYT do not expect Bonds to get prison time after" On 1B it's more a question of general layout:

   Is it O.K. to say "Some writers"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's better, but still weasel word-ish. Particularly to use the indefinite "some writers" when referring to a specific source. If this was a view of several different writers then "some" might make more sense. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Feel free to make a suggestion or tweak it yourself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:WTW goes to this. Just be direct with who is making the claims in the source. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I just went back to your original suggestion and eliminated the word some.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Could his general big chunk of Giants career be broken apart a bit? The current giant block of text can be difficult to navigate. I'm looking at Mariano Rivera as an example of a brilliantly laid out baseball biography. Why not start with 93-00, 01-07? Basically even chunks that break nicely at his record breaking 01 and such.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• The standalone "Bonds on Bonds" section strikes me as very awkward. Perhaps fold into controversies, given how it died?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Again I would look to Mariano Rivera on how to format the career records section. A table would make it far more readable and accessable.
  • I know you can demand a table, but for a GA, the content is presentable, IMO. At FAC, I would understand the need to reformat it, but I question the necessity of it at GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Whoopsies, right you are, not a part of GA criteria. Would be nice, but not a demand. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Another prose note, the section on what to do with ball #756 is unclear currently it just notes Ecko set up a site to determine what to do and then a quote by Bonds that he's angry with what Ecko's doing. Should probably include the result of Ecko's poll there. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Added content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• "Dominated the NL" under Pirates career seems a bit POV.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• The current sourcing (#20) doesn't actually explain the prose currently in the article about Bonds changing his number. The article alleges (in a sentence with no source) that Bonds switched to honor his father, but the source provided actually suggests he originally actually wanted Mays # and switched after an angry fan response. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• All I would say is maybe move the perjury charge section up directly below the BALCO section. As it is it looks thin, but directly below it would be clearer that the info there flows into the indictments.
  • Moved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Was going to bring up Wizard's point under prose, but I guess it really belongs here. His Pirates career section needs a major overhaul. As it stands his first four years is covered in a handful of sentences and the 06 and 07 season are each as large as his first 14 years in the majors. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What you are arguing is basically that large portions of the article are at maximum FA level of detail and other parts are at minimum GA level of detail and it looks bad, IMO. Yes parts of the article have high level of detail and this level is not uniform, but the less detailed levels still adequately cover the material, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• You could argue that for the early Giants section, maybe. But the Pirates career section is far too short, even for GA status. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am going to need another 7 days for that then.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• No worries, take your time. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have added a few articles to add context to the statistics. I am not sure if much else is really missing in terms of telling the Bonds story. Let me know if you still want more.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Was their really nothing else notable from his career with the Pirates, particularly early on? His first 4 years (86, 87, 88, 89) currently get as much prose total as home runs 736-740 which broke no record or anything. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I can only find him being involved in fan resurgence and added that I searched on Barry Bonds Pirates record.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• The attendance stuff looks good, it paints a solid picture of a young superstar's impact on a down franchise. Could you add the trade rumor to the Dodgers mentioned here and here? Barry Bonds for Jeff Hamilton and John Wetteland. Hah. Imagine how different the baseball world would've looked with Bonds on the Dodgers (potentially longterm) rather than walking to the Giants. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• One last prose note I was reminded of in digging up the above sources. Could you mention the impact of Andy Van Slyke on moving Bonds to left (as opposed to center, his original position)? The longer of the 2 sources above touches on this, as does this article (might be useful for other things, also). Also, 10 seconds of Google News archive searching found some stories on a generally contentious relationship between Bonds and Van Slyke, may be worth including. (A USA Today story available on Lexis Nexis, for example, titled "Bonds, Van Slyke agree that relationship is fine"). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • O.K. I added the bit about them not being close and the position move. I also stumbled upon something about him batting leadoff in 86 and 87.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yep, and this one isn't easy. Be careful to be broad in coverage here if you add/expand into a Legacy section like Mariano has.

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Will always be troublesome with a topic like this.

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   aye

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lets get it started in here! Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To add a comment, the recentism on this article concerns me as well. The 2006 or 2007 season sections are larger than the entire Pirates career. You wouldn't think that he won two MVPs for that team on a skim of the article. I'm sure Stax would've pointed this out later on in the review, just noting it now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good, passing it. I would seriously consider reorganizing the career distinctions section, probably into a table. It's quite messy right now! Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from RHeckman2010, 4 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I would like to add a line to the following paragraph

San Francisco Giants (2001–2007):

After the last line ("He then hit numbers 71 and 72 off of Chan Ho Park the following night. Bonds added his 73rd off of Dennis Springer on October 7.[51]"), I would like to add the following line: "The ball was later sold to toy manufacturer Todd McFarlane for $450,000. McFarlane previously bought Mark McGwire's 70th home run ball from 1998."

Here are my sources:

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-16/justice/ctv.baseball.lawsuit_1_martin-triano-alex-popov-patrick-hayashi?_s=PM:LAW http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40C12FA3A5F0C758EDDAF0894DB404482 RHeckman2010 (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Done and used the first link as a reference. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.169.72.25, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The page shows several Barry Bonds signature accomplishments at the top of the page. Although it is mentioned later, one of his premiere statistical feats, which surpassed another of Babe Ruth's previously thought unassailable records, is not shown in this section:

A record Slugging percentage in a single season (.863), 2001

This record is also one of the most important 1) because it surpassed Babe Ruth, a record which was thought never to be beatable 2) because it represents a combination of hitting for average and hitting for power, a feat that has been considered a very important hitting statistic and which should be headlined in the first section, i.e.

"He holds numerous Major League Baseball records, including the all-time Major League Baseball home run record with 762 and the single-season Major League record for home runs with 73 (set in 2001), hitting feats that surpassed not only the records set by Babe Ruth but also the subsequent later records set by Hank Aaron and Mark McGwire, as well as Babe Ruth's record for Slugging percentage in a single season, which Bonds passed with an average of .863 in 2001, and the all-time career record for both walks (2,558) and intentional walks (688)."

Also, the section listing the records Barry Bonds holds does not include the career records for walks and intentional walks shown in the first section, though it does repeat the home run records

i.e. add to "Records held" section "career walks 2,558 career intentional walks 688"

Perjury investigation and federal indictment

The section should add the recent report that the lawyers have asked that Anderson not be allowed to appear nor have his refusal to testify told to the jury, as well as the lawyers request that the judge not allow other baseball players to testify, or the use of other evidence from Balco or Anderson. i.e. "In January 2011, lawyers for Bonds asked the judge to forbid testimony of current and former baseball players linked to BALCO or the steroids scandal, nor to permit the use of Anderson as a witness (when, presumably, he would refuse to testify), nor allow the jury to be informed of Anderson not testifying, nor permit use as evidence of Anderson's drug ledgers and calendars, as well as other documents from BALCO, or a reported tape of Anderson talking to Steve Hoskins, previously a business manager of Bonds."

In section 2.3 San Francisco Giants (2001–2007), the text reads that Barry Bonds ironically stole his 500th base off the same team he hit his 500th home run off of. The word should be "coincidentally," as irony requires contrary events or statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.210.110 (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

References: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/07/BANC1H64B4.DTL http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-01-08/bonds-says-jury-shouldn-t-hear-of-trainer-s-refusal-to-testify.html "Bonds’s lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Susan Illston not to let the government tell the jury of Anderson’s refusal to testify and also to bar prosecutors from calling Anderson as a witness knowing that he will refuse to answer questions. Separately the defense lawyers asked the judge to exclude a 2003 audio recording of a purported conversation between Anderson and Bonds’ former business manager." http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_17057796?nclick_check=1 67.169.72.25 (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I'm sorry, this is too confusing to follow. Please specify exactly what text needs to be added in each section. --Darkwind (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

you won't edit it, you won't let us edit it. Well, the article is out of date. Not my bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.154 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's another hit, Barry Bonds!

This song should be mentioned in the article. This is about Barry Bonds, and its by Kanye West. Mr. West got a 10.0 on Pitchfork, so he's pretty important. The only other albums I know of that got 10.0s from Pitchfork are Kid A by Radiohead and two reissues. (The reissues, if you're wondering, were DJ Shadow's "Endtroducing...." and The Dismemberment Plan's "Emergency & I.") I can't believe Pitchfork didn't give The Plan a 10.0 from the start. Sigh. Anyway, as you can see: Kanye is pretty important, and he has a song where the chorus is, "And here's another hit, Barry Bonds." Holy fuck! That's huge! Why isn't that in the article? Elvis is mentioned in the article for <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Christmas">http://Blue Christmas</a>!

Until this bias is fixed Wikipedia is a joke, a false website, one that deserves no respect.

Oh, man, I messed up that URL BS. WORST GOATSE EVER.

Sincerely, Doink the Clown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.154 (talk) 23:10, 42 March 200X (MEGAMAN TIME)

How is a rapper mentioning an athlete "huge"? Do you want me to quote every single instance of that happening? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Charities and external website

I'm an Australian who came to this entry via a mention on another website. I have little knowledge of baseball apart from the obvious that people in the USA love the game with a fierce passion. I'd like to know if Barry Bonds charity work is only found by those who click on the link to his website. I realize he's controversial, and has annoyed people. Did I miss any mention of this aspect of the Barry Bonds story? If someone has put a foundation together isn't it worth a mention here? Is NPOV wikipedia policy? Thanks for your tolerance of my ignorance. Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

BARROID nickname

should be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.100.125.225 (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Debut date

There is a peculiarity about Bonds' "debut" date in the major leagues. Indeed, his first game was May 30, 1986. However, his daily log for 1986 shows him with one hit in one at bat on April 20.

What happened was that the Pittsburgh at Chicago game of April 20 was suspended after 13 innings (with the score 8-8). The game would be not be completed until August 11, and Bonds got play in the resumed game, with the Pirates winning 10-8 in 17 innings. Bonds singled in the lead run as a pinch hitter, then finished the game in centerfield.

The scoring rules specify that in the case of suspended games, the game statistics are applied to the original date. Thus, Bonds efforts on August 11 are effectively backdated to April 20, and that becomes the day of his "first" major league hit, even though he'd been playing for several months when he struck it.

Certainly, he's not the only ballplayer with this sort of anomaly on the record, but he may be the most famous. If the above isn't mentioned, someone reviewing the record will be puzzled. WHPratt (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)