text:
Talk:List of Major League Baseball career home run leaders

Main page has serious issue
Alex has not hit 600 home runs, he has only hit 500.

and it lists him as only hitting 500, too. -- Shatterzer0 22:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think (well for this page and there should be a page like this) that it should only be MLB only. Honestly "Oh" and the Japanese league are 2 different things like orange and apples. I'm not taking anything away from "Oh" but his mention should not be here in the 1st place. OneiroPhobia 11:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Delgado was elected into the Hall of Fame in 2015, but his name is not highlighted in yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdfulmer (talk • contribs) 15:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's expand it to Top 1000
Why not?

 * Top 500 is barely encyclopedic as it is. Expanding it to Top 1000 will end up including far too many names that are not notable for hitting home runs. - RPIRED 21:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Hey, why not top 10,000? That way we can get some those dead-ball era players in here. 74.245.20.195 (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)...this is a joke

Putting an asterisk next to Bonds
I am not a Wikipedia expert - I'm a newbie in fact - but when I click on the Barry Bonds hyperlink, I get an error that "Barry Bonds *" does not exist. I think it would be OK if the "*" were not there.

I would greatly appreciate it if someone would fix the hyperlink. I don't care if there is an asterisk or not - I just want the hyperlink to work. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.182.231 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions...if this was some message board and someone was posting this, that would be different, but this is not the place to put an asterisk because you think it should be there. If MLB officially puts an asterisk next to it, then put it there. Many of the listings will put an asterisk next to Bonds, but that's because it's there way of denoting an active player. Since this listing simply puts the active players' names in bold, then leave it be.

 * How about at least a mention of the modern day steroid controversy?

 * If you do that, where do you draw the line? Do you mention the guys who played back when baseball was all white?  Do you mention the guys that used or were suspected of using amphetamines in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, or guys that got caught or were suspected of corking their bat (i.e. Babe Ruth)?--71.131.180.150 16:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say more than Bonds have been suspected or caught outright of cheating. Guys like Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire and Rafael Palmerio come to mind. You need to add an asterisk to those players as well or remove it from Bonds name.
 * Don't forget Giambi as well, he sort of admitted to "possibly" using them earlier in the year. As well as anyone else who is under suspicion of using performance enhancers/steroids. -- Shatterzer0 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The first ban of doping was made back in 1928 but no test was done and those using drugs did get away with it. As an example, it is alleged that at 1936 Summer Olympics held in Berlin, Germany engaged in a nation-backed doping to win but this was a norm, rather than exception, with many athletes still actively and continuing to use drugs either by a national, commercial, or personal drive. Thus, from a very pessimistic view, if any suspected user of drug were to have an asterisk, everyone dating back to 1928 (as basic rules were set only then) would have to have one.--Revth 05:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about an asterix, but steroid controversies related to this list are extremely notable. I believe that they can be discussed in an encyclopedic way, with sources that discuss their signficance to the perception of this list. Savidan 05:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the asterisk because Major League Baseball does not give Barry Bonds an Asterisk. If we are going to put an Asterisk on Barry Bonds we need to put an asterisk on every HR hitter who played from 1980 - present. thenext —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenext (talk • contribs) 01:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody keeps putting an asterisk next to Bonds' name, and I will remove it every time I see it. Keep your personal opinions off Wikipedia. Thank you. Justinthebull (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

500?
There are only 295 names on this list. Why is the page called "Top 500 home run hitters of all time"? Wouldn't "MLB all-time leaders in home runs" be a better name for it? --Idont Havaname 20:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What are you talkings about, count right...70.134.102.159 18:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this page really need to exist?
While I appreciate all the hard work that has gone into this list, what is the point? Does it really add depth to the wikipedia community? This information is easily obtainable on any number of sites. I would vote to delete this. Wolverinegod 07:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I've removed the prod tag. While I agree there are some potential problems with this article, I don't think it should be deleted, and certainly not without a full AFD discussion. — sjorford++ 09:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Per your suggestion. I sort of thought it was a nobrainer but can appreciate the idea.Wolverinegod 10:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

DON'T DELETE IT I use this page all the time, it's very informative.

"All time" - nope!
Not merely trite, "All time" is just plain wrong when used in reference to ongoing activities. Neither time itself, nor major league baseball, has reached its end. Thus, there can be no such thing, yet, as an "all time" baseball record. Another candidate for inclusion in a Wikipedia style book. Publius3 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Since we can't see the future, it makes perfect sense to define all-time as ranging from the beginning of time until the present. Furthermore, any book such as a sports almanac is current only for a tiny portion of its existence. SuperMachine 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the effort and the information as it is not easily found anywhere else that I know of and it is truly updated on a timely basis...I believe it should stay as a valuable piece of information.

?
Why are some numbers missing? - Bagel7 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, the logical reason is that the season is in progress, and the number rank has not been updated as of right now. But the home run totals should be right as of today. Maybe the ranking will get updated soon - Mrsteak613 16:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Top 100 - delete/redirect?
Unless someone has a reason to keep both lists, I think we can probably get rid of List of top 100 Major League Baseball home run hitters. I'll do so in a couple days if no one responds. CredoFromStart 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed List of top 100 Major League Baseball home run hitters to redirect here (no "keep" responses from anyone on this). It's fairly redundant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CredoFromStart (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Wil Cordero
I was checking that Wil Cordero has 122 career home runs, and on March 7 he was signed by the Mets to a minor league contract (thus an active player). Can he enter the list of people within 5 home runs of the top 500, just like Michael Tucker?
 * why not? Do it! Happy138 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!
Thanks for taking the time to update this. i look at it almost everyday!!

I use it daily too, thank you. There is a lot of criticism against this page, but I really enjoy it, thank you.

2007 Milestones
I was wondering what you (the author) thought about having Barry Bonds' milestones, (home run 755, 756) noted in this section, along with the players hitting home run 600, 500, etc.

Thank you

Merge!
MERGE Absolutely! Happy138 16:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, i would have to say MERGE!. There isn't really a point to keeping both. It's kind of stupid. Clay4president2 19:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say the other way around. Having a list of 500 seems really excessive and unnecessary.  Cutting it down to 100 or less would be more appropriate per WP:L and WP:Laundry Long levi 03:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the top 25 just barely gets out of the 500 club though. i like to see how active players are moving up in the ranks. if there was only the top 25, youd only be able to track a handful of active players —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpjoyce10 (talk • contribs) 19:21, July 7, 2007
 * I think 100 would be a good number or perhaps 50. Isn't it a little odd to have Rich Aurilia and Kenny Lofton on an all-time home run list? They certainly should be merged, whatever the length is. Basar 04:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I just redirected the other page. There was no new content on that page and it was more out of date. We can move and cut this page if we decide to list a smaller number of players. Basar 04:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move and refinement

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

This page is really out of hand. I do understand that there are many people who like editing the page. It clearly gives you an opportunity "contribute". However, I think this is very contrary to WP:L and WP:Laundry. Other than the argument that it is neat to look at and follow, does anyone here have a reason why this should not happen? I know that people feel that the "neat to look at" argument is valid, but it does not seem to be supported by the various guidelines and policies on wiki. Another list (List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins) seems like a very strong naming convention and I would suggest it is moved to List of Major League Baseball leaders in career home runs. While I personally think that 100 is excessive for lists, I think the top 100 is a nice compromise between inclusionists and deletionists Long levi 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Longlevi Banned as Sockpuppet. FYI, Longlevi, the above (and below) editor, has just been found to be a sockpuppet of a banned user named Tecmobowl, who has used socks in the past.  Accordingly, he has been banned indefinitely.  See -- Epeefleche 00:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I support this move for the given reasons. Basar 07:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I OPPOSE. I believe there is merit to having this list, which shows the 500 most prolific HR hitters in the history of the game. Happy138 08:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mind describing what that merit is? I feel that a threshold of 500 sets the bar too low and allows fairly ordinary, non-home run hitters into the list like Rich Aurilia who has a .440 lifetime SLG%. Basar 08:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Longlevi is quite right. We should have consistency among the various career leaders pages.  I would amend his suggestion of including the top 100 and suggest instead including those with 300 career home runs or more (which would currently result in 114 people).  300 homers is a generally accepted standard of excellence and notability.  But listing people with only 129 career homers is just silly.  Kenny Lofton has never hit more than 15 in a season!  --BlueMoonlet 02:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy138 You seem to be the primary editor of this page. I understand that you take some enjoyment in editing the content that exists here. Unfortunately, that does not mean that the article should exist as is. There are a ton of other articles that have popped up related to home runs, almost all of which are splintered and problematic. There are lists for the 500, 600, and "700 clubs". Why exactly should these articles exist? Moving this article and then redirecting those would solve two problems: It would satisfy WP:NC and it would help eliminate information that has been duplicated time and time again. The "500 Club", and similar articles, are horribly named. Moving this, and eventually others, will help establish a standard way of creating article lists related to baseball content. What is the merit to having this article include 500 people?  Long Levi  05:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment, but I am far from being the "Primary Editor" of this page. This title belongs to User:Dale Arnett. I just like to play around with it. The merit of having this list, in my opinion, is that one of the main interests of Baseball fans are the statistics, and having this link satisfies the need to be updated on the top 500 sluggers of the game. I think that the fact that only 500 people in the whole entire world were able to hit 129 home runs, shows that this is a noteworthy feat. I do agree with you that there is no need for the 500, 600, 700 HR club lists. Happy138 10:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of any wiki guidelines or policies that support your statement?  Long Levi  05:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with Happy138. BTW, Baseball Reference lists the top 1,000.   As long as someone is updating the list, I don't see the harm in letting those who care to look at it see who the top 500 are. Some may only care about the batters with more than 300 home runs.  They need only look that far.  Others may be interested in seeing the full list.  Why deprive them of the opportunity.  Especially at this point in time, with great interest in home run hitters.--Epeefleche 07:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * even cutting it to those with 300 is too much. i like to see how players like albert pujols and adam dunn, who will surely be some of the most prolific home run hitters of all time, are moving up the list in the earlier stages of their careers. and like its been said, there are clearly people who enjoy tracking this list, so it would seem sort of spiteful to erase over half of it. as for the kenny lofton argument, the list does not claim to be the most prolific home run hitters of all time or notable home run hitters of all time, its simply a list of the top 500 home run hitters of all time. kenny lofton qualifies. obviously, out of the thousands of players who have played in the MLB, kenny must be doing something right to be in the top 500.Bpjoyce10 20:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Comment: OK, since I've been nominated as the main editor (LOL), time for me to weigh in.
 * On the one hand, Bp does make a point that it would be nice to see how players like Dunn and Pujols progress through their careers.
 * On the other hand, 500 may be overkill.
 * On the other other hand, I just looked at the official MLB list for career homers, and went to the very last page. Assuming that everyone who's ever played in MLB is listed—a good assumption, considering that some players without an at-bat are listed—there have been 16,616 players in MLB history. Running the numbers, that means the top 500 is a hair over 3% of all players in history. Considering that, by my SWAG, about a couple of thousand are pitchers, that makes our list roughly the top 3.4% of all MLB position players in homers. I ran the numbers, and it's the statistical equivalent of a 127 IQ—among a group of men who are already at the right edge of the bell curve of baseball talent. If baseball-reference.com maintains the top 1000, I don't particularly see why we can't keep the top 500.
 * On the original topic—the name change—I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. — Dale Arnett 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * There seems to be a roughly 4-2 split in favor of keeping it at 500 at this point. If anyone wants more input, they might consider soliciting it on the Baseball Wikiproject page.--Epeefleche 04:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Flags
Do we really need the flags? There's not much room... Happy138 20:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't see much need for the flags as they add very little, if anything, to the article except for clutter. This article isn't about a player's country of birth, it's about HRs. I'm planning on removing them unless someone can provide a compelling reson for inclusion. Chaz Beckett 03:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree, the flags are really unneccesary...if this was the British Open, maybe, but US Home Run leaders are mostly American, and, yes it's great that Sammy Sosa is from wherever he's from, and all this other stuff, but, please, enough... RHolecko [| Original Creator Of This Page] 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * How about instead of country flags, we put MLB team logo (either logos of all teams the player has played for, or if due to space considerations, the logo of the team the player either a.) hit the most home runs for, or b.) is synonmous with... RHolecko [| Original Creator Of This Page] 04:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not like the flags at all. I look at this page all the time, and I really do not like the flags.

So, since no one likes the flags - let's remove them. Who'd like to do the honors? Happy138 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I removed them, but messed up on the style. Please fix it! Thanks! :)) Happy138 11:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I have fixed it myself... Happy138 13:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is still messed up. Column 1 and 2 are close to each other, and column 3 is further to the right.
 * So please fix it, my friend! Happy138 16:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there another list?
Is there another list that incorporates all the other leagues and their homerun leaders? i.e. you'd obviously have bonds in 2nd, next to oh, with aaron in 3rd. I was wondering if there is such a list... -- Shatterzer0 04:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I second the question. Where is the a Japanese baseball list? Happy138 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think (well for this page and there should be a page like this) that it should only be MLB only. Honestly "Oh" and the Japanese league are 2 different things like orange and apples. I'm not taking anything away from "Oh" but his mention should not be here in the 1st place. OneiroPhobia 11:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just questioning whether there was another list such as this and this being the only list I've seemed to find, thus I left the question to be answered on here. Baseball is baseball though, that's all there is to it. There should be a list with worldwide statistical leaders. -- Shatterzer0 00:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"professional baseball record"
I've added a fact tag, but I guess it's confusing, so I'll specify here. I'm not denying Sadaharu Oh hit 868 home runs, more than any other NBP player in NBP or any MLB player in MLB. But that's discounting any home run totals in the minor leagues or Negro Leagues, both of which were/are fully professional leagues -- totals which would affect the home run count of many major leaguers. For example, Hank Aaron played in both from about 1949 through 1953; any home runs hit during that time don't count toward his 755, but would count toward a "professional baseball record". That's why I'm asking for a source for the "professional baseball record" claim. Jpers36 17:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadaharu Oh
As much as Sadaharu Oh's accomplishment deserves recognition, that recognition should be elsewhere, and not on a page that concerns career stats in Major League Baseball, as he never actually played Major League Baseball. I never saw his name in this article during the years when the list was topped by Hank Aaron, and regardless of the variety of reasons that many of us believe Bonds doesn't "deserve" to head the list, throwing in Oh's Japanese stats looks like sour grapes. Any comments? --DHLister | Talk 16:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Columns
Will someone PLEASE fix the columns so they are parallel to one another and not stacked below? —Preceding unsigned comment added by V8americanpower (talk • contribs) 14:18, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Removing Wade Boggs
Hi, I just removed Boggs. He has 118 HRs not 137. The error is in the HOF homepage in his 1993 and total HR stats. Happy138 (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Defining "active"
Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa are designated as no longer active, even though neither has officially announced their retirement. Neither is on any major league roster, and I agree that they should be listed as inactive. However, I scoured the list and found that seven players are listed as active despite not being on any major league roster: Mike Piazza, Steve Finley, Kenny Lofton, Preston Wilson, Trot Nixon, Julio Franco and Rondell White. Some are on minor league teams, Franco is in the Mexican League, while others are outright free agents. Either Bonds and Sosa should be reclassified as active, or these seven should be classified as inactive, and the total number of active players in the top 500 be dropped to 73. (FWIW, I already changes Reggie Sanders' status since he has officially retired to the broadcast booth, but that's the only edit I'm willing to make without a consensus opinion.) Justinthebull (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would propose that only players that are currently on a Major League roster (including the DL) be designated as active. Tuyvan (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that "active players" should be players who are on an MLB roster or have been in the past 12 months.

 * I think it should be anyone that has actually played at any level during the current season (or anyone on the DL obviously)  - unless that player retired of course. So guys like Bonds and Sosa are inactive, while guys like Nixon and now Frank Thomas are active.   If you want to argue that guys like Bonds 'could' play again... even retired players can come back, and they're obviously inactive. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Negro League page? Merge?
I was wondering if we should add players like Josh Gibson into the page, or sould we make a new one for Negro Leaguers? I mean, it's not like Sudaharu Oh, he technically did play in the Majors. Maybe we should add a page on top 500 strikeout pitchers as well. Tanks a bunch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.20.219.145 (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Current Year Milestones
Have been on this page in past years but a user keeps removing them. How do you feel about it? Should we have them on the page or not.

2008 Milestones The following players reached major home run milestones in 2008:

500 career homers:

Manny Ramirez — May 31

300 career homers:

Richie Sexson — May 1

Entry into the top 500:

Jason Bay with his 130th career homer — May 24

--Npnunda (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Say no to immediatisms. This is not a 2008 encyclopedia.  You can put this into 2008 in baseball if you care to. -- Y not be working? 15:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I came into the discussion to post this.

I really like having it on the main page. Please put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.109.155 (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support placing it back on the page also. --Npnunda (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And what about the this text which was taken off: (It is not updated, but at least some of it should be put back on the article, IMO:

"Carlos Peña is the most recent entrant into the top 500 list with his 129th homer on September 26, 2007. Pat Burrell was the most recent player to reach 200 home runs on July 17, 2007; Todd Helton the most recent to 300 on September 16, 2007; and Carlos Delgado the most recent to 400 on August 22, 2006. The most recent player to join the 500 HR club was Jim Thome on September 16, 2007. On June 20, 2007, Sammy Sosa became the most recent player to hit 600 home runs. Barry Bonds is the most recent to reach 700 home runs, on (September 17, 2004).

The youngest player on the list is Miguel Cabrera, 24 years old; the oldest active player is Julio Franco, age 49 (who has been the oldest player in MLB since 2004, and is the oldest regularly playing position player in MLB history).

To make the top 200 (including ties) on the all-time list, a player would need 241 or more home runs, while 192 homers are needed to enter the top 300. To be the 400th best of all-time, a player would need 155. The 500th most prolific career home run hitter, however, has only 25 fewer, at 130. The last change in the cutoff for the top 500 was on September 27, 2007, when Carlos Peña hit his 130th homer and displaced two players from the list."

What do you think? Happy138 (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The stuff about what it takes to be in the top 200, 300, 400, etc. is pointless cause anyone can just look at the list and see that stuff. even the stuff about most recent to a certain milestone is pretty easy to surmise just by looking at the list. the only thing i would maybe want back is when the cutoff gets bumped up and people get knocked off the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpjoyce10 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ok. I am re-adding this quote: "The last change in the cutoff for the top 500 was on September 27, 2007, when Carlos Peña hit his 130th homer and displaced two players from the list". Happy138 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

retired players
royce clayton, todd walker, and david bell are all retired. stop putting them back on the "next players to watch" list. even if royce clayton came back, hes 20 homers away from making the list. hes only hit 24 home runs total since 2003, including just 5 total in the last 3 years. its all meaningless anyways, since he, along with the other 2 mentioned, are retired, according to mlb.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpjoyce10 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Official game
It seems to me that editing of this page to reflect recent home runs should wait until they are official, generally at the end of the fifth inning. If there is consensus to this, how best to enforce it? Matchups 18:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point. If a game is canceled (which in the 2008 season sp far has happened only once) - it can be reverted. Happy138 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Active Players
Should we have a secondary list of only active players who are on the top 500 list? Just a suggestion. Juve2000 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NO--Akc2543 (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect
Does anyone else think this ought to be semi-protected? There's no reason to make an edit between now and next baseball season, and the only people doing so have been vandals. What do you think? Coemgenus 17:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am the one who got it protected for a week, earlier this month. Happy138 (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat my 2008 proposal -- when the season ends, this page should be semi-protected. Coemgenus 15:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bonds and Thomas
The list shows Barry Bonds as retired and Frank Thomas as active. My impression was that their situations were identical: willing to play if a team signs them, but not currently signed. Does anyone have more information about their statuses? Coemgenus 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they're both inactive as of now. Jonathansuh (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to 'deactivate' Thomas Bkatcher (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Post Season HRs
How come post season home runs are not counted? SilverWoodchuck47 (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * MLB only accumulates home runs hit in the regular season. So we are going with them. Jonathansuh (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but what is the reasoning for not including pot season home runs? I'm curious. Transaction Go (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

i dont understand what youre asking. are you asking why we dont count postseason home runs here? its because they arent counted as official career home runs by MLB. if youre asking why MLB doesnt count them, its because a great player on a bad team plays far fewer games than a player on a good team if you count both regular season and postseason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.190.55 (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

End of Season
Do you think we should erase the seasonal home run totals in the parentheses in the active players now that the season is done? Jonathansuh (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say we should leave them until opening day, so people can see the players' most recent season totals. 17:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem?
I believe there's a ranking mistake at Wally Joyner. Can someone please look into it. I might be wrong. -- Toolazy21
 * What exactly is the problem? Happy138 (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

....Well
Well think this thing is stupid soo get a life people!!! okay thanks!!!:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.211.162.61 (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Hidden" list
It takes up 1.5 KB. That's fairly sizable. What is the benefit? Many of those players won't play again. I know I might be grazing the borderline of WP:CRYSTAL here, but I think it's WP:CRYSTAL to suggest that someone like José Vidro will play again, and he's the top guy on that list. At the least, for the sake of cutting down on article size, the cutoff should be raised. But then again, I don't see why it's necessary, when you can simply add someone to the page when they actually crack the top 500. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We can take those who aren't active. Who do you suggest taking off? Happy138 (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It definitely makes no sense to talk about inactive players approaching anything regarding a milestone you would need to be active to achieve. But again I ask why there's a hidden list at all?  If someone cracks the Top 500, he should be added, but why continually update totals for hitters who aren't in the Top 500 on the page that is a list for only the top 500? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's there for the editors. Happy138 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty general, and as an editor I don't find it useful. I can see keeping notes if a couple of players get close as a reminder, but there are players who are a full season (and in some cases more than a season) away from theoretically cracking the list. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do find it useful, but agree that 108 might be too low. How about 120? Happy138 (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally do like the hidden list, but I think we should take out all the inactive guys, like Jose Vidro, Scott Spiezio, Jay Gibbons, and etc. And I agree that 108 is too low. What about the next 20 (including ties) players for the hidden list? Jonathansuh (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I took out some of the inactive players and the bottom part of the list. How is that as a compromise? --Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed asterisk from Bonds
Who's ever consistently adding an asterisk next to his total, stop. He is the home run king and the MLB sees all 762 of his home runs as legit; hence why the MLB has not added an asterisk to his name in any shape or form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albo23 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Futhermore, any edits adding an asterisk to Bonds or anyone else associated with PED's should be considered vandalism, and the editors vandals. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Parenthetical Numbers
I apologize if its clear as day and I simply did not notice the clarification, but there's no mention as to what the numbers in parentheses next to current players means. Is it all-star selections? Years leading team in home runs? Maybe this was accidentally edited out at some point. If its clear as day, then I apologize 68.125.35.26 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was in a hidden comment. You can now see it. I am not sure why it was hidden in the first place. Happy138 (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To all the tireless editors of this and other baseball stat pages
I commend your work here keeping this and other similar pages up to date and free of errors and vandalism. This does take a good deal of attention and effort. That said, I still hope the AfD I started for this article and the one Stax started for the 2000 hit article are closed as 'delete'. I expect that many others in this category will soon be nominated, and most of them will also be deleted.

This means that many of you who focus on these articles may suddenly have less to do here. I hope that if these pages are closed as deletes, or even if they aren't, you might help WP:Baseball by working on some of our highest profile pages, some of which could use serious improvement. Thank you for your efforts. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Have any of the stats articles been deleted yet??? Withouth them, I really don't have much to do on Wikipedia... but, we must follow the guidelines. Sad to think they'll go. Jonathansuh (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A few have been: see Articles for deletion/50 home runs and 50 doubles and Articles for deletion/3000–500 club. This and the 2000 hit pages may survive. If they are deleted, you should focus your talents on other baseball pages, like the ones with the most page views. Even if these survive deletion, your help is greatly appreciated at those pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or you can do what I did when they deleted several articles I worked very hard on: stop editing, and leave 'em to the wolves. It's a lot easier than working for years on an article, only to see it deleted on a whim. Czolgolz (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Things don't get deleted "on a whim." As you can see by the length of the AfD for this and the 2000 hits page, nothing is being taken lightly. These AfDs, however, are long overdue. We don't want to see good editors be discouraged and disappear. Please stay and help with other established pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If an article I've worked on for a year gets deleted after a week (or less) of discussion, I consider it a whim. I have over 8,000 edits, but what's the point on working on an 'established' article if it might be deleted next month? Czolgolz (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Don't get personally involved. My first DYK in my latest return, List of the largest single day Jeopardy! prizes, got deleted and I keep right on editing. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So, here we are
This article was kept for a reason I disagree with. The AfD was never about a content dispute. But, since it's kept, I think we should revisit the cutoff. Why 500? Let's trim it to 300, as in the baseball almanac. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I think what B. Bugs was talking about was that the almanac lists only hitters with 300 home runs ... not the top 300 home run hitters. I would be wholly in favor of a list of 300 HR hitters vs. the top 300 (or 500). LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the same mistake in the AfD, assuming he meant 300+ HRs. He meant the top 300. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Just snip to 100 and be done with it. That's at least kinda close to a notable bunching of hitters, 500 is insane and 300 isn't much better. This should not be a page that requires constant updating from every game. If it's so inclusive that every game features home runs affecting it, it is too broad. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I left a message on the closing admin's talk page looking for clarification about why he closed it as a content dispute when I wasn't disputing content. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bwah! If it has to be kept, go with the top 100 hitters then.  LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins is also one of the worst offenders of overcoverage/notability. I agree with cutting this to 100. I'll do it in a few days if there are no serious objections. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins being overbroad. That should be cut off at 200 wins (which would leave a little over 100 players).  If we are cutting to 100, I think it would be better to just use 300 HRs as the criterion for now, which would be a little more than 100, but not ridiculously so. Rlendog (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur, top 500 is much too broad, cutting it to 100 seems very reasonable. Neonblak talk  -  09:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * 500 is too many, I agree, but cutting it to the top 100 players is also arbitrary. If we re-frame the list as "List of Major League Baseball player with 300 home runs", the inclusion criterion makes more sense.  It would be based on a players acheivement of a certain goal, not his rank among other players.  It's more consistant with other lists of this type, and would also cut the list down to 129 players, close to the 100 others are advocating.  A reasonable compromise?  --Coemgenus 14:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the level of performance is a more useful criterion to consider notability, and so would prefer that the list be based on the number of home runs hit. isaacl (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Before we do anything, we should notify other major contributors, like Torresm1, Harry138, Clay4president, etc. I personally would go for player with 300 hrs. Jonathansuh (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I prefer lists that set a criterion for inclusion rather than just "top X" ... I would be more in favor of "Players who hit 300 career home runs" list ... but what would stop someone from saying that this is arbitrary (vs. players with 200 or 100 home runs). LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the problem. No matter what we do to change this list, it will be based on an arbitrary cutoff. The sole non-arbitrary cutoff is 500 HRs, and we already have a page that covers that. Part of this page is redundant, the other part is not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I could see a cutoff at 400 home runs, 300 home runs, or top 100 (100 being a manageable round number). There is certainly notability to 400 home runs, which even though it never attained the cache of 500, was long the de facto standard for a Hall of Famer - until Dave Kingman, every player with at least 400 home runs was enshrined, and Kingman was then regarded as a special case for his extreme one-dimentionality and disdain for writers.  Here are a couple I found quickly to support 400, although not ideal.   .  That said, going before the 1960s, I think every player with over 300 home runs made the HOF as well, although there wasn't a whole lot of players between 300 and 400 home runs then. Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 300 HRs is my personal inclination, but I'd support 400 is that would help form a consensus to chop this list down a bit. --Coemgenus 13:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the list might be better as Major leaguers with 200 homeruns or more, 200 is very inclusive of important hitters on the rise and eliminates many journeymen players...Modernist (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems that discussion here has died out. I'm taking it to WT:BASEBALL. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is no objection by the end of Memorial Day weekend, I will be moving this page to List of top 300 Major League Baseball home run hitters and editing it accordingly. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm not objecting, yet, but I thought people seemed keener on the MLB players with 300 home runs idea. --Coemgenus 18:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going by the number that had the best rationale in the recent AfD. That was top 300, not 300+. A page for the 300 home run club would be entirely redundant to 500 home run club. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but since top 300 is still an improvement over top 500, I'm not going to object to the move. --Coemgenus 18:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is redundant, since there are a lot more players at 300 than 500, and 500 is a lot more notable (though in my view 300 is notable as well). In any case, that would currently be the top 129.  Maybe just chop it to 150 or 200.  Chopping to 300 is still an improvement, but I don't think it's enough of one. Rlendog (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I object. It's not broken - don't fix it. This is a list of a very small percentage of MLB players who made it to the top 500. It is being kept up to date and I don't agree it should be changed so dramatically. Thanks, Happy138 (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This list includes such luminary home run hitters as Ty Wigginton, David Segui and Matt Nokes, to name three. This is over-inclusive. It is a violation of WP:NOT and WP:ROUTINE that wasn't deleted because of a successful WP:ILIKEIT defense, but it absolutely needs editorial direction, including reducing the list significantly and adding some perspective so that we're not copy-pasting web sites that are designed to do this. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This should go back to top 500 there was nothing wrong with it and seeing who was tied with who...please change it back.--Bbonds775 (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I love baseball stats and liked seeing players make it on this list. I liked it when it was 500 too.  I don't know there's anything wrong with 500.  If you don't like it, stop reading after 100,200,300 whatever. Lagerhog (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This page violates WP:NOTSTATS, and your argument is WP:ILIKEIT. I still feel this article should have been deleted in the AfD, and I will probably renominate it during the offseason. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that going back to 500 is a mistake, but renominating for deletion is just pointy. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm suggesting is not covered by WP:POINT. I want to renominate an article that was kept when it should've been closed as no consensus at best, in hopes that consensus may change. I'm not seeking to create a similar article for the sake of showing that should be deleted, and that therefore so should this. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll never understand wikipedia editors who change articles for arbitrary reasons invented by wikipedia editors. i'll probably get flamed for not understanding how wikipedia must be presented as prestigiously as possible, but seriously, plenty of people liked this article as top 500. that alone should be reason to keep it that way. how exactly is it too broad? because there are four columns of players instead of three? nobody ever said it was a list of "the most notable home run hitters," it was just a list of the top 500. if that means david segui qualifies, then so be it. it's pure spite to crop this list down to 300, there's no way around that. if you don't like the article, just don't go to it. that's how the rest of the internet works, it's how wikipedia should work. most of these editors aren't academics, they have no business setting up rules for how an encyclopedia should be organized. bpjoyce10 (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, WP:NOTSTATS trumps WP:ILIKEIT. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * and like i said, some dude just made that rule up cause he felt like it. it's like saying "like i said, burritos trump ham sandwiches. see, here's the rulebook to prove it:
 * best food items:
 * 1. burritos
 * 2. ham sandwiches
 * rules compiled by bpjoyce10" bpjoyce10 (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(indent) First of all, bpjoyce10, the WP:NOT is not just something that someone came up with. It is a policy. That means a substantial majority of the editors on this encyclopedia have decided that this is what they want. Since it is a policy, that means short of an exceptional situation, we follow it. Following this is not arbitrary. More importantly is the policy of WP:CONSENSUS ... when it comes to decisions like this, we go with the consensus of the editors. I don't mean this to be a flame, and I hope you don't take it as such. That said, I don't see a personal problem with a list of the top 100 home run hitters ... you might find sources that list this (I seem to recall that the Baseball Encyclopedia had a list of the top 100 in several categories. I don't know many sources that listed the top 300, and I doubt many list the top 500. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Muboshgu Why do you want this deleted? I understand it's stats and shouldn't be here as stated in WP:NOT, but many many people enjoy this list and check on it regularly during the season. If you don't like it, stay away. But please don't ruin it for everyone here who enjoys it. What do you have to gain by this article being deleted ? Lagerhog (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is correct to characterize this as "what does any editor gain with the deletion?" The website has limitations on what should and shouldn't be here, mostly based on a consensus of the editors.  There is a lot of grey area.  Muboshgu is well within his rights to decide if a list of statistics like this goes or stays.  Frankly, there are a great many articles that I don't think belong here because they are not encyclopedic.  I also think there are some articles that would make research much easier, and have routinely not been supported by editors.  That's Wikipedia.  Muboshgu is correct in stating that WP:ILIKEIT is not a good reason for something to stay.  That being said, lists of statistics are not precluded from this site.  What is important is establishing notability and verifiability.  Verifiability, I suspect, is not at all in question.  The arbitrary nature of using the top 300 as a cut off.  As I suggested above, the Baseball Encyclopedia includes a list of the top 100 in its publications.  I suspect similar lists can be found elsewhere.  I highly doubt too many publications, encyclopedias, etc have lists of the top 500 or 300 (Baseball Almanac gives the top 1,000, and MLB.com lists just about everyone, but they are, I suspect, the exceptions. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ok so admittedly, i don't know too much about the way wikipedia works, but are these editors who are deleting articles actually employees of wikipedia? are they getting paid by wikipedia? if so, i can understand their decision. if not though, they're just dudes who really like a website and have the ability to edit it arbitrarily. and yes, the policies on wikipedia are still arbitrary. like i said, these editors aren't academics who have any right to determine how an encyclopedia should be organized. it would be like if i really liked a restaurant but didn't work there, and started going back into the kitchen and adding different ingredients to dishes the cooks were working on. i like to think of wikipedia as a place where i can find stuff i want to know. a lot of editors seem to be trying to make sure that's not the case bpjoyce10 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.190.55 (talk)
 * Clearly, I have no problem with verifiability. These numbers are accurate, and I give credit to those who edit this page. However, this page contains nothing but an excessive listing of statistics. It doesn't provide any reason for why it's notable. We have a notable list for home runs, called 500 home run club. That is a solid list of statistics because it contains context. This page serves to duplicate some of that content and add more content without establishing why it's added. I'd support cutting it down to top 100 as opposed to keeping it at top 300. Bpjoyce, please read some of the guidelines to see how consensus is formed on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How difficult would it be to change the list back to the top 500? I would rate this page in the top 20 wikipedia pages most visited by me.  My main reason for coming back so frequently is seeing how the currently active players are moving up homerun list, and the number of current players on the list has been reduced with the cut-off being reduced from 500 to 300.  It is time for the silent majority to stand up and speak out, not only for the retention of this list, but to bump up the number to 500, and to stop one stubborn editor who seems to have a personal vandetta against this article from ruining it for the rest of us.SalvarosaBoy (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Baseball Reference's career home run list is available for anyone seeking an ongoing ranked list of players by career home runs. isaacl (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be difficult to change it back to top 500, because nobody has demonstrated a good reason to do it. This being one of the "top 20 pages visited by you" is not a good reason. I may be the most vocal editor on this issue, but read the talk page and you'll see I'm not the only one. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "It would be difficult to change it back to top 500 because nobody has demonstrated a good reason to do it" IN YOUR OPINION, but wait, I forget, only your opinion matters here, and eventually, come hell or high water, you will get your way.SalvarosaBoy (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree 100% with SalvarosaBoy. I visit this all the time to see how current players are moving up the list.  I was quite disappointed when I saw the list cut down to 300 because I was really looking forward to seeing Jose Bautista make the list and slowly move up it.  He would be on the list of top 500 but now because of a couple Debbie Downers I cant track him.  I still don't understand why people want this site gone.  There's many articles on Wikipedia that I could care less about, so I just don't visit them.  I'm in no way trying to get rid of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagerhog (talk • contribs)

 * It's not my opinion that nobody has given a good reason to expand this list, it's demonstrably true that every argument given, including Lagerhog's, falls under WP:ILIKEIT. Give reasons for expanding this list and we can discuss them, but saying you like the list to be longer doesn't suffice. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, seeing no valid reasons against, we need to turn this from simply a list of the top 300 to something more substantive per WP:NLIST, such as players with 300 HRs or other criteria where a significant number of sources can validate notability. As you've mentioned, this article (as is) violates WP:NOTSTATS. WP's wheelhouse is prose. I feel the current status of this article is to include non-HR hitters who've hit 15 HR/season for several years, when that may be something notable for that position, it is does not necessarily mean the same when compared to peers playing other positions (where power is expected...and sources stating such are easy to back up its notability). It is hard to generate prose describing the notability of being in the top 300 HR hitters of all time, or essentially achieving the 200 HR career mark. Top 300 (roughly 200 HRs) are nice round numbers -- round numbers don't necessarily equate to notability. If folks want to see a list where they can find every Tom, Dick, and Harry who ever hit a HR in the bigs, there are plenty of sites offering such. I suggest editors look at other articles, such as List of National Football League passing touchdowns leaders (30 players), List of National Football League rushing touchdowns leaders (24 players), and List of National Basketball Association career rebounding leaders (50) for guidance. Zepppep (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No asterisk For Sosa?
I'm sitting here LMAO. There should be no asterisks next to anybody's name unless their record is officially expunged. Otherwise we are making our own judgments as to who did what. As far as Sosa goes, shouldn't we also have an asterisk for those who corked their bat or were there also superballs or was that just a batting practice bat that just got mixed up? And Sosa he couldn't be accused of steroid use, could he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddiem (talk • contribs) 18:41, July 19, 2011
 * I removed the unsourced addition of the asterisks. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Frank Thomas(es)
Should there be some sort of explanation (a footnote or in the text) that there are two players on the list named Frank Thomas? Baseball fans know the difference, but casual readers might be curious as to why the same name appears on the list twice. — Michael J 22:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO, curious users can click on the links. That should suffice. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Just asking for opinions. Thanks. — Michael J 03:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Players approaching the top 300
Why do we hide the list of active players approaching the top 300 list? Since it's there and is being updated along with the rest of the page...why not display it?Juve2000 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Alex Rodriguez Defintely should have an asterisks
"In February 2009, after previously denying use of performance-enhancing drugs, including during a 2007 interview with Katie Couric on 60 Minutes, Rodriguez admitted to using steroids, saying he used them from 2001 to 2003 when playing for the Texas Rangers due to what he called "an enormous amount of pressure" to perform" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Rodriguez#Steroid_use

Its one thing to say we all think Bonds is using so should have an asterisks, but when one admits to steroids, they should have an asterisks, he did not get those home runs without performance enhancing drugs according to wiki, and even he admits it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.167.71 (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

how many times does this have to be rehashed? MLB, and MLB alone, has the authority to put an asterisk on someone's name. wikipedia doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpjoyce10 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Formatting of Page
The page has four columns of 75 names, but the fourth (listing the 226th to 300th best home run hitters) is hidden beneath the first list of 75 names. Could this be straightened out by listing the names in columns of 100 each? That way, the top 100 would be in the left column, the next 100 in the middle, and the final 100 at the right.

 * That all depends on the formatting of your computer. When I have mine set for large print (sometimes my vision troubles me), the fourth column is under the other three. At normal size, all four are side-by-side.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 12:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Consistency of Catagories
I consider it a drawback that the categories used in 'lists' of notable players are inconsistent. For example, a list like this, of those who are in the top 300 (formerly top 500) of those who hit home runs operates differently from the list of those have hit safely 2000 or more times. No one who makes the list of 2000 or more hits can ever be removed - for all time, a player who has hit safely 2000 or more times has met the requisite standard. But a member at the bottom of a list of the top 300 (or 500) who do anything (home runs, doubles, value of tickets sold to a movie, etc.) ceases to be on that list whenever another entry is added to the list (absent ties, of course).

So, the makers of these should choose one format or the other: all players who have done something; or the top x number who have done it. And use that format consistently.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.121.150.74 (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing
Curious as to why Wikipedia wants to change the guideline to editing this page after an entire slate of games for the day has concluded. Updating it once a home run is official seems to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.70.176 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because often times the only sources being sourced are ones that would fail WP:Verifiability, there is a "stats updated through" date that needs to be adhered to for the sake of the reader (not the editor), players appear on the list in relation to other players so updating one before another makes the article inaccurate, and because editors were making selective edits (i.e., updating one particular player repeatedly but relying on other editors to update the article from a WP:NPOV). Zepppep (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Nobody is going to wait until ALL the day's games are over, and then one editor is going to do ALL the HRs hit by players that day. That's a silly idea, and should be scrapped ASAP. --Katydidit (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WP's five pillars and philosophy is more concerned with being correct and verifiable than it is with being first. If editors do not wish to update all players for the article, that is their choice. Inevitably there will be someone who comes around and updates the article in accordance with the aims of the project; this is WP's tried-and-true MO. The way the page had been edited, editing only players who belong to a certain team, whilst other players languish and the accuracy and verifiability of the information is second to someone's preference for a team/player is not consistent with WP's MO. Correcting the article depends on an editor who employs a WP:NPOV and there have simply been too many corrections needed to the article on a daily basis for the old method to to be a long term-way of ensuring accuracy to the article. Zepppep (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Also, people are not waiting until a home run is official. Often they were watching games and adding home runs as they were hit. This can lead to an (albeit rare) instance where a home run is hit in, say, the first inning, then the game is rained out before it becomes official. That "home run" officially does not exist.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 12:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Columns
Any chance in putting a space in between them like it used to be ? Makes it easier to read. Or is this the way it has to be ? 70.79.51.182 (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Players To Watch
Traditionally, that section has only listed players within 40 home runs of the cutoff to make the Top 300. It's arbitrary but it makes sense - it's nice to know who's coming up but keeping track of more than a dozen or so players every day who aren't even close to the cutoff is a big hassle. Hence, I think the cutoff should be Brian McCann, who's 40 home runs shy of the cutoff. Otherwise updating the section is a greater hassle than it's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyBigWheel (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Players to watch" shouldn't be on the page at all, because the criteria of the page is quite clear. There's no need to even update it in hidden comments, because the stat sites do it plenty well, and the cutoff of where to "watch" is arbitrary. Besides, a person 40 home runs away from this list is at best a full season away from making the list. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So can we delete the section? I want to clear that with the eds first. comment added by BobbyBigWheel (talk

 * Keep the Watch List and the Watch List should include more than just the few guys that are within 40 home runs of making the list. If someone is willing to keep the hidden list up to date then so be it. It doesn't hurt anyone and then each year it makes it easier to keep track of what players are moving up on the list. Redmen44 (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion on maintaining commented out lists that you invited to join at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball.—Bagumba (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Alphabetizing
One of the editors of the page does not alphabetize players who have the same home run totals when he or she updates the list. I go back in and alphabetize them but this duplication of work should be unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.41.10 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Why are we listing the players who have the same home run totals alphabetically? Shouldn't it be listed chronologically? For example, Hack Wilson hit 244 homeruns before Jose Abreu did. Banueloschris (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

A-Rod
Is Alex Rodriguez considered active for the 2014 season, even though he is suspended for the entire season? Perhaps a footnote and/or a different color (red?) denoting this is in order. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If he's announced his retirement (and I think he did,) we should no longer list him as active, right? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * He has not retired, he's a free agent Taffe316 (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Bonds picture
Wondering if anyone has an opinion on the picture of Bonds a user added a few days ago? I like it personally and plan to leave it be, but I'm open to suggestions if anyone thinks it should be removed.Taffe316 (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Taffe316

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017
Nelson Cruz has 34 Rjrsurprise (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  19:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017
Nelson Cruz has 34 Rjrsurprise (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  19:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for this list
Why is this list the MLB players who have hit 221 or more home runs? Where did this 221 come from? Why is it not 200+ or 250+ home runs? Natg 19 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I guess the 221 number gives the top 300 HR hitters, but it is still strange and arbitrary to me. This list should use a round number. Natg 19 (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 300 is a round number lmao. Do you know what a round number is? Taffe316 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I guess it is a round number of hitters, but it was strange at first to see that shows "all Major League Baseball players with 221 or more home runs", which seemed arbitrary at first. I would have framed this list around the number of home runs, not a total number of hitters, but what we have is fine. Natg 19 (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Asterisk next to Jeter
There is an asterisk next to Jeter’s name as if he passed away. It should be removed. 174.111.49.57 (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The asterisk signifies he's been elected to the baseball hall of fame. Bkatcher (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Paul O'Neill
You are missing O'Neill....who hit 288 home runs 24.45.242.12 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He hit 281 HRs and is in 190th place. (.288 was his batting average). Atbannett (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Major League Baseball which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wai (water)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wai (water)
Unexpandable dicdef. Delete. Mustafaa 20:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, foreign language dictdef. RickK 21:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh. Merge with water. -- BD2412 talk 21:15, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
 * Why? Do you really think there should be a section in Water which indicates the word for water in every language?  Then why not the same thing for every other word in the encyclopedia?  RickK 66.60.159.190 16:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * delete, "all words in all languages" is for wiktionary. Kappa 20:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Black theology

Black theology, or black liberation theology, refers to a theological perspective which originated among African-American seminarians and scholars, and in some black churches in the United States and later in other parts of the world. It contextualizes Christianity in an attempt to help those of African descent overcome oppression. It especially focuses on the injustices committed against African Americans and black South Africans during American segregation and apartheid, respectively.

Black theology seeks to liberate non-white people from multiple forms of political, social, economic, and religious subjugation and views Christian theology as a theology of liberation: "a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the Gospel, which is Jesus Christ", writes James H. Cone, one of the original advocates of the perspective. Black theology mixes Christianity with questions of civil rights, particularly raised by the Black Power movement, Black supremacy, and the Black Consciousness Movement.

History
Modern American origins of contemporary black theology can be traced to July 31, 1966, when an ad hoc group of 51 concerned clergy, calling themselves the National Committee of Negro Churchmen, bought a full page ad in The New York Times to publish their "Black Power Statement", which proposed a more aggressive approach to combating racism using the Bible for inspiration. Black theology arose as an affirmation of black Christians in response to critiques from a range of sources, including black Muslims, that claimed Christianity was a "white man's religion", white Christians that saw black churches as inferior, black Marxists that saw religion as an unscientific tool of the oppressor, and black power advocates who saw being Christian as incompatible with being black.

In American history, ideas of race and slavery were supported by many Christians from particular readings of the Bible. The Southern Baptist Convention supported slavery and slaveholders; it was not until June 20, 1995, that the formal Declaration of Repentance was adopted. This non-binding resolution declared that racism, in all its forms, is deplorable" and "lamented on a national scale and is also repudiated in history as an act of evil from which a continued bitter harvest unfortunately is reaped." The convention offered an apology for "condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime" and repentance for "racism of which many have been guilty, whether consciously or unconsciously. These historic events are used to associate Christianity with racism but the Bible stresses that race is irrelevant: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Cone relates that, once upon a time it was acceptable to lynch a black man by hanging him from the tree; but today's economics destroy him by crowding many into a ghetto and letting filth and despair put the final touch on a coveted death.

Black theology deals primarily with the African-American community to make Christianity real for black people. It explains Christianity as a matter of liberation here and now, rather than in an afterlife. The goal of black theology is not for special treatment. Instead, "All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice. No more, and no less. In asking for this, the black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, "If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as "the helper of the fatherless" (Psalm 10:14) to "deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper" (Psalm 72:12).

Black theology would eventually develop outside of the United States to the United Kingdom and parts of Africa, especially addressing apartheid in South Africa.

United States
James H. Cone first addressed this theology after Malcolm X's proclamation against Christianity being taught as "a white man's religion" in the 1950s. According to black religion expert Jonathan L. Walton: "James Cone believed that the New Testament revealed Jesus as one who identified with those suffering under oppression, the socially marginalized and the cultural outcasts. And since the socially constructed categories of race in America (i.e., whiteness and blackness) had come to culturally signify dominance (whiteness) and oppression (blackness), from a theological perspective, Cone argued that Jesus reveals himself as black in order to disrupt and dismantle white oppression."

Black theology contends that dominant cultures have corrupted Christianity, and the result is a mainstream faith-based empire that serves its own interests, not God's interests. Black theology asks whose side should God be on – the side of the oppressed or the side of the oppressors. If God values justice over victimization, then God desires that all oppressed people should be liberated. According to Cone, if God is not just, if God does not desire justice, then God needs to be done away with. Liberation from a false god who privileges whites, and the realization of an alternative and true God who desires the empowerment of the oppressed through self-definition, self-affirmation, and self-determination is the core of black theology.

Black theology largely foregoes intricate, philosophical views of God, instead, it focuses on God as "God in action", delivering the oppressed because of his righteousness. The central theme of African-American popular religion, as well as abolitionists like Harriet Tubman, was the Old Testament God of Moses freeing the ancient Hebrews from Egyptian rulers. Likewise, Cone based much of his liberationist theology on God's deliverance of Israel from Egypt in the Book of Exodus. He compared the United States to Egypt, predicting that oppressed people will soon be led to a promised land. For Cone, the theme of Yahweh's concern was for "the lack of social, economic, and political justice for those who are poor and unwanted in society." Cone argued that the same God is working for the deliverance of oppressed black Americans.

Cone agreed with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, affirming that Jesus is "truly God and truly man". Cone argued that Jesus' role was to liberate the oppressed, using the Gospel of Luke to illustrate this point: "the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the good news preached to them" (Luke 7:22). Cone also argued that, "We cannot solve ethical questions of the twentieth century by looking at what Jesus did in the first. Our choices are not the same as his. Being Christians does not mean following 'in his steps.'" Cone objected to the persistent portrayal of Jesus as white: "It's very important because you've got a lot of white images of Christ. In reality, Christ was not white, not European. That's important to the psychic and to the spiritual consciousness of Black people who live in a ghetto and in a white society in which their lord and savior looks just like people who victimize them. God is whatever color God needs to be in order to let people know they're not nobodies, they're somebodies."

South Africa
Black theology was popularized in southern Africa in the early 1970s by Basil Moore, a Methodist theologian in South Africa. It helped to give rise to, and developed in parallel with, the Black Consciousness Movement. Black theology was particularly influential in South Africa and Namibia for motivating resistance to apartheid. This movement would also be closely related to the South African Kairos Document. Southern African black theologians include Barney Pityana, Allan Boesak, and Itumeleng Mosala.

On the African continent, a distinction is often made between black theology, with its emphasis on liberation in southern Africa, and African theology, with its focus on drawing on African cultural ideas towards the inculturation of Christian theology.

Britain
In the United Kingdom, Robert Beckford is a prominent black theology practitioner. He was the first in the UK to develop and teach a course on black theology at an academic level.

Although it is not limited to the British context, an academic journal which has been a key outlet for the discourse around black theology in Britain has been Black Theology, edited by Anthony G. Reddie.

Criticism
Anthony Bradley of The Christian Post interprets that the language of "economic parity" and references to "mal-distribution" as nothing more than channeling the views of Karl Marx. He believes James H. Cone and Cornel West have worked to incorporate Marxist thought into the black church, forming an ethical framework predicated on a system of oppressor class versus a victim much like Marxism. However, it is known, that White Christianity was the strategy used to justify slavery and to keep enslaved, the black population.

Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago, has been cited in the press and by Cone as the best example of a church formally founded on the vision of black theology. The 2008 Jeremiah Wright controversy, over alleged racism and anti-Americanism in Wright's sermons and statements, caused then-Senator Barack Obama to distance himself from his former pastor.

Stanley Kurtz of the National Review wrote about the perceived differences with "conventional American Christianity". He quoted the black theologian Obery M. Hendricks Jr.: "According to Hendricks, 'many good church-going folk have been deluded into behaving like modern-day Pharisees and Sadducees when they think they're really being good Christians.' Unwittingly, Hendricks says, these apparent Christians have actually become 'like the false prophets of Ba'al.'" Kurtz also quotes Jeremiah Wright: "How do I tell my children about the African Jesus who is not the guy they see in the picture of the blond-haired, blue-eyed guy in their Bible or the figment of white supremacists [sic] imagination that they see in Mel Gibson's movies?"

title: Black theology


text:
List of dialling codes in the United Kingdom

This is a list of telephone dialling codes in the United Kingdom, which adopts an open telephone numbering plan for its public switched telephone network. The national telephone numbering plan is maintained by Ofcom, an independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries. This list is based on the official standard, but includes defunct codes and historical changes, including the derivation of the two letter identities, in cases where known. Dialling codes do not correspond to specific political boundaries: for example, the Coventry dialling code covers a large area of Warwickshire and the Manchester dialling code covers part or all of several neighbouring towns.

When dialling within the country, all area codes are preceded by the national trunk prefix 0, which has been included in all listings in this article. 0 was traditionally the number dialled for the operator for long-distance calls before subscriber trunk dialling (STD) was introduced, and so was retained as a prefix for direct-dialled calls. In the majority of areas, the area code still corresponds to the original STD letter code. When dialling from abroad, the 0 prefix is not dialled. When dialling within the same area, the area code is not needed, save for a handful of areas that do require this. When calling from a mobile telephone or through a VoIP service, such as BT's 'Digital Voice', the area code is always needed.

List of dialling codes
For an explanation of the two-letter STD codes used below, see Introduction of area codes.

ELNS denotes Extended Linked Numbering Scheme areas, where an area code is associated with more than one place name.

01426, 01523 and other non-standard 01 prefixes were briefly used for pagers in the late 1990s and then moved to new 076 prefixes in the Big Number Change in 2000/2001.

In several area codes, a block of 1,000 numbers is set aside for use as fictional numbers for drama.

Code length
The length of the area code part and the local number part is found as follows:

The number format '2+8' refers to, e.g. London, numbers using the (020) xxxx xxxx format.

The number format '5+4' refers to, e.g. Brampton, numbers using the (0169 77) xxxx format.

Areas with mandatory area code dialling
In the following areas, the area code must be included when dialling local numbers. This enables local numbers to start with 0 or 1 and was introduced to increase the number of available telephone numbers within these areas.

Overseas Territories
Unlike the Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man which use the UK area codes 01534, 01481 and 01624, respectively, telephone numbers in British Overseas Territories do not come under the UK telephone numbering plan. Some are within the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). These calls are treated as international calls. Below are the access codes for the overseas territories:

North American Numbering Plan

 * Anguilla +1 (264)
 * Bermuda +1 (441)
 * British Virgin Islands +1 (284)
 * Cayman Islands +1 (345)
 * Montserrat +1 (664)
 * Turks and Caicos Islands +1 (649)

Others

 * British Antarctic Territory +44 (shared with the UK)
 * British Indian Ocean Territory +246
 * Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands +500
 * Gibraltar +350
 * Saint Helena and Tristan da Cunha +290
 * Tristan da Cunha also uses +44 (0)20
 * Ascension Island +247
 * Akrotiri and Dhekelia +357 (shared with Cyprus)
 * Pitcairn Islands +64 (shared with New Zealand)


text:
File:Antlions1HL2.jpg

Screenshot from Half-Life 2 of Gordon Freeman battling Antlions. The weapon seen is the Combine Overwatch Standard Issue Pulse Rifle. Image was taken by Thunderbrand from the Microsoft Windows version.

title: File:Antlions1HL2.jpg


text: Talk:PHA training

title: Talk:PHA training


text:
Don Ivan Punchatz

Don Ivan Punchatz (September 8, 1936 – October 22, 2009) was a science fiction and fantasy artist who drew illustrations for numerous books and publications, including magazines such as Heavy Metal, National Geographic, Playboy, and Time. He illustrated album covers, and provided the cover art for session guitarist Steve Hunter's debut solo album, Swept Away. Characterized as a "skilled hyperrealist with a penchant for the fantastic and absurd" and "elegantly weird", he produced cover art for books by Harlan Ellison, Isaac Asimov and others.

Punchatz was born in Arlington, Texas. In 1970, he started the SketchPad Studio there, where he trained dozens of apprentices (known as "the elves") and came to be known as the "Godfather of Dallas Illustration." During 1993, id Software hired him to create the Doom video game package art and logo. The result was named the second best video game box art of all time by GameSpy. His son, Gregor Punchatz, has worked on special effects for several films, and also created monster sculptures for Doom.

Punchatz suffered a cardiac arrest on October 11, 2009 and died in an Arlington hospital on October 22, 2009.

Partial cover art bibliography

 * A Barnstormer in Oz
 * Dayworld
 * Dayworld Rebel
 * Foundation and Empire
 * Gods of Riverworld
 * Second Foundation
 * Worlds of the Federation

Video game cover art

 * Doom (1993)

title: Don Ivan Punchatz


text:
Hughes Mining Barge

The Hughes Mining Barge, or HMB-1, is a submersible barge about 99 m (324 ft) long, 32 m (106 ft) wide, and more than 27 m (90 ft) tall. The HMB-1 was originally developed as part of Project Azorian (more widely, but erroneously, known as "Project Jennifer"), the top-secret effort mounted by the Central Intelligence Agency to salvage the wreckage of the Soviet submarine K-129 from the ocean floor.

The HMB-1 was designed to allow the device that would be used to grasp and lift the submarine to be constructed inside the barge and out of sight, and to be installed in the Glomar Explorer in secrecy. This was done by towing the HMB-1, with the capture device inside, to a location near Catalina Island (off the coast of California), and then submerging it onto stabilizing piers that had been installed on the seafloor. The Glomar Explorer was then maneuvered over the HMB-1, the retractable roof was opened, and the capture device lifted into the massive "moon pool" of the ship, all within clear sight of people on the beach.

After the conclusion of Project Azorian, the HMB-1 was mothballed at the Todd Shipyard in San Francisco, California until November 1982. At that time, the United States Navy towed the huge barge to a Lockheed Martin facility in Redwood City, California, where it became a floating drydock for the construction and sea trials of the Sea Shadow, an experimental stealth ship being tested by the Navy. Sea trials of the Sea Shadow continued until 1986.

Fate
After several attempts to find the vessel a home at a museum, General Services Administration offered the HMB-1 and Sea Shadow for sale as scrap. The vessels were bought by the Bay Ship & Yacht Company of Alameda, California for US$2.5 million in June 2012. Under the terms of the sale Sea Shadow had to be scrapped.

The HMB-1 was refitted at Treasure Island for service as a covered drydock. This enables the shipyard to more easily control waste byproducts, maximize quality control for painting, and avoid loss of productivity due to bad weather.

The overhaul included new equipment to allow the dock to submerge and surface by pumping ballast water, rather than by the previous compressed air system. The barge is no longer capable of submerging completely. Like other floating drydocks, it takes on enough water to allow entry of a vessel, then pumps out ballast until the interior of the dock is above water.

As of August 2013, HMB-1 was moored at the Bay Ship & Yacht Company facility on Main St. in Alameda, CA. In March 2015, the helipad was removed from atop the dry dock.

title: Hughes Mining Barge


text:
List of U.S. states and territories by income

This is a list of U.S. states, territories, and Washington, D.C. by income. Data is given according to the 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates, except for the American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands, for which the data comes from 2010, as ACS does not operate in these areas.

States and territories ranked by median household income
Data given in 2019 dollars. No data was given for 2020. Tables do not reflect the margin of error in the values.

States and territories ranked by per capita income
Data for the American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands is given as of 2010 (source: American FactFinder). Resident population given as of the 2020 United States Census.

Historical development of per capita personal income (2023–1930)
States by historical development of per capita personal income in nominal US Dollar.


text:
Talk:United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command

Untitled
I wrote the July version of this article and the Civil Affairs article which have survived largely unedited for the past six months. Linking CAPOC to 'propaganda organisations' is inaccurate and I have removed the link. MrPrada 08:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This article was put on WP:VFD, but survived after being rewritten (Votes for deletion/USACAPOC). Thue | talk 20:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good news stories?
"Its special operators are some of the most highly trained soldiers in the U.S. Army, and are responsible for many good news stories each day."

I have deleted this phrase as it entirely lacks qualification, particularly of the definition of "good news stories". It has been stated that it does not operate domestically, so where are these "good news stories" being run? What do they involve? Are the stories factual, or propaganda-based? How highly trained are these soldiers, and in what?

If anyone can clarify this by all means revert, but I see this sentence as being in violation of WP:NPOV. --IntrigueBlue 09:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the "good news stories" that run domestically are created by the American Media, not CAPOC itself, and that needs clarification. Also, the nature of CAPOC is that the reservists themselves bring skills from their civilian occupations that aren't normally found in the military, therefor the term "highly trained" is accurate but in need of further explination.MrPrada 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

USACAPOC draws from both the Reserves and the active Army. The highly skilled part is that the majority of the soldiers who volunteer for Civil Affairs and PSYOP come from the various combat arms and special operations branches of the Army. USACAPOC soldiers train on skills for multi-level combat operations, language skills, medical, airborne, and other levels of special operations requirements. The reserves does offer the hard to train skills for the active army having CA and PSYOP soldiers who are also city engineers, mayors, police, fire chiefs, manufacturing supervisors etc. plays greatly into the roles needed for Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction. CA and PSYOP teams/units support both regular army and special operations forces during combat and other types of missions facilitating interaction with the civilian populace. Also CA and PSYOP conduct missions around the globe in both combat and humanitarian aid operations in times of war and peace with other nations. Now as for Good news stories I think PSYOP was confused with Public Affairs which is not a USACAPOC branch. PSYOP is there to inform the civilian populace of military matters. For example PSYOP can produce verbal, written (newspaper, billboards, etc) and video products to inform locals of dangers such as old mine fields, bad water, to stay inside during raids, etc. Civil affairs teams will be used to support reconstruction efforts, government establishment, build good relations through joint efforts with local leaders. As this is only a quick note of what USCAPOC can do please look into the good things that are being done by these men and women around the globe not just the negative media blasts. Also the Army and the Marines have the only Civil Affairs units in the US military. (2 June 2007) from a CA/PSYOP Soldier.

At least the "Psychological Operations" section deserves a neutral tone warning. Maybe a newsrelease|section badge? It's clearly written by someone whose primary interest is saying good things about this military group. I imagine there are good things to say about them, but it isn't informative and it isn't concise. It's just not what people are actually interested in when they look up this military organization. This page needs a real wikipedian. Not me. Perhaps there should be concrete examples of what this group does, has done? I'm going to throw that in there right now; if a real wikipedian will please stand up, they should feel free to revert me or even better to fix the section. 173.8.186.37 (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are non-American Non-Military people editing this page?
I see that several of the edits are form people who are A. Not American B. Not Military. Stay in your lane! From: CA/PSYOP Soldier Ft. Bragg, NC

Stay in YOUR lane, solider. The Posse Comitatus Act should prevent the Pentagon from including domestic "targets" in the "theater" of "war." Infiltrating American media to plant "good news" stories is UN-AMERICAN. And ANYONE can edit these pages; however, I do realize that the First Amendment stands as an inconvenient impediment to your propaganda mission. Operate within the bounds of the law and the Constitution, lest you become an "enemy of the State." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.119.132 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

1st Training Brigade
Could someone more personally knowlegeable of their unit structure than me include 1st Training Brigade and their subordinate units into this page as being a part of USACAPOC(A)?206.39.41.2 (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 440th CIVIL AFFAIRS BATTALION.png

 * I also deleted the 306th PSYOP CO. It has been removed from the inventory as October 2021. The PsyWar (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

New draft accepted, 353d Civil Affairs Command
Can someone please review 353d Civil Affairs Command. It is appears to be a substantial spinout of Civil_affairs and a fresh version of the 6 years+ untouched redirected stub 353rd Civil Affairs Command.

I may request a history merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

M.Ali
Dear Sir 203.171.122.18 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)