Talk:List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report/Archive 1

Keep names under source headings
We need to organize these names according to source headings. We can't just stick them all in one big list. These players are all mentioned for different reasons. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-12-13 19:32Z


 * The news services have listed them this way and we're doing nothing different. We're listing names mentioned in the report with no terribly specific reason displayed. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:36, 12/13/2007


 * Nice bad rationale. We are not "the news services". We are an encyclopedia. We cannot simply spam a list of names and imply they all did something bad. That is libel and we can be sued. Stop this idiocy. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-12-13 19:40Z

As a practical matter, we should wait for a major source (ESPN maybe?) to release a full list. Just going from the Mitchell Report, a primary source, is original research. Then, we can just link to the ESPN/whatever article, and be perfectly safe. Mackensen (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems like the best choice. Until then, we are posting libelous content. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-12-13 19:45Z


 * It's already been reported. This list was announced on network TV. It's not libel, it's saying which names were mentioned in the report, which is the truth and has been reported. And please stop calling other people's opinions "idiocy". Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:47, 12/13/2007


 * You don't get it. These people are implicated for different reasons. Some definitely did bad stuff, some others, maybe not. You can't stick them all together under "people who did steroids" and get away with it. That's libel. It has to be split up according to source and their connections explained. If you choose to connect yourself with a highly simplified interpretation of reality, at which a judge would laugh, I would not hesitate to call it "idiocy". &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-12-13 19:53Z


 * I don't think using a primary source is OR, and I seriously doubt that it's libel. However, it's not a good idea. We should wait until a secondary source puts out a list. --Elliskev 19:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Per WP:OR use of primary sources: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." --Elliskev 19:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Using a primary source is not at all OR. There's no reason to wait. Plenty of secondary sources have shown notability, and that's all we need secondary sources for. For the information itself, primary sources are just as good. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:53, 12/13/2007


 * No, secondary sources are also used for analysis. By becoming the secondary source, we are essentially presenting our analysis, which is OR. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-12-13 19:55Z


 * That's your opinion. Read Wikipedia's policies, they disagree with you. Primary sources are fine. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:56, 12/13/2007


 * As we have already seen, the potential for libel is great and your edits were potentially libelous. As for Wikipedia policy, I'm not sure how you interpreted "it is easy to misuse them" to mean "it is fine to use them". &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-12-13 20:01Z


 * [EDIT CONFLICT]They aren't fine, the are allowed "with great care". I don't think great care is being used right now with this particular primary source. Therefore, in this case, the primary source should not be used. I suggest the lists be removed and players only be added with an accompanying secondary source and a synopsis of what role they play in the report - per the secondary source. --Elliskev 20:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not "great care" is being used is a matter of opinion. How people interpret the list isn't our concern if they're just assuming something that isn't said in the article. We've listed names the way they appear in the report, and not making any contentions as to why they were listed, other than those specifically said in the report. If people see "Players identified as clients of Kirk Radomski" and assume it to mean "these players have definitely used steroids", that is not our fault. Add disclaimers if need be, but the list and the headings themselves are the truth, and great care has been taken. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:11, 12/13/2007


 * When we're dealing with articles involving living people, the standard is a lot higher than that. Per WP:BLP this discussion doesn't even need to take place. --Elliskev 20:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * BLP is being honored because NPOV, OR, and verifiability are all honored here. The information is verifiable per the primary source. It's not original research because the names and headings come directly from the source. The POV is neutral because we aren't adding any theories or conclusions. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:17, 12/13/2007

Chad Allen and Dan Naulty are in the PDF file.
Article is understandably in flux right now. Just posting here as an FYI DavidRF (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sammy Hagar?
Is Sammy Hagar in here for a reason, or is his presence in this list just vandalism? Umbralcorax (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, its gone now. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic value
What is the encyclopedic value of this list? It has been stripped of all context. Each individual is mentioned in the report for specific reasons that the report cites. This list doesn't mention any of that. It's easily interpreted as a smear against the players. I'm for deleting this list and putting the relevant information into each players' articles. This list has no well-intentioned purpose. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-12-13 20:21Z


 * It's notable per WP:N. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:23, 12/13/2007


 * No, Mitchell Report is notable per WP:N. This list has no encyclopedic value without context. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-12-13 20:24Z


 * I deleted the lists per WP:BLP. I'm sure somebody already reverted me. Without context, we're lumping together a bunch of names in a defamatory list. Every entry deserves a secondary source a a statement of context from a secondary source. --Elliskev 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What specifically in BLP goes against this list? And why does each name need a secondary source? Where you getting that from? <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:27, 12/13/2007


 * "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims." from WP:BLP? --Elliskev 20:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we will use third party sources. ESPN, CNN, MSNBC, ect. dposse (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what needs to be done. Until we have those sources, we shouldn't be including any names in any list. --Elliskev 20:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We have plenty of third-party sources verifying the report. We don't need a third-party source to verify each name in the report. That's a little ridiculous. Again we aren't drawing any conclusions. We're just stating what's said in a report that's been verified over and over again. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:39, 12/13/2007
 * Elliskev, those media articles are probably already up, and if they aren't, they they will be up in the next hour or so. Please, relax. We will have this article properly sourced. Right now, this article is a work in progress. It doesn't help if you are constantly thinking up ways of how this article will fail. dposse (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not thinking of ways it will fail. I created the article. I want to make sure that it is in line with policy. --Elliskev 20:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And please don't tell me to relax. That's pretty condescending. --Elliskev 20:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We do need a third-party source for every name in the list to justify the name being in the list. --Elliskev 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well all I can tell you is "no, we don't". We've verified the report, so including its contents doesn't violate BLP in any way. When secondary sources are available we'll cite them. I agree with dposse, it's a work in progress, so let's chill. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:47, 12/13/2007

OK. I took a breather and reevaluated my position on using the report as a source. There are enough people working on this to ensure that the report as a source is used responsibly. I think I got a little defensive. I withdraw my objection. --Elliskev 22:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

List reformat
Well, I would propose that each case be fleshed out. Explain what the results were of the investigation. Something like:

Then there is context and information. Thoughts? Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 20:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:34, 12/13/2007
 * Agreed. I'd also recommend that we source everything with the page number of where it can be found in the Report. dposse (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad idea. Drawing our own conclusions? Come on! --Elliskev 20:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Who said we'd be drawing our own conclusions? We'd use infomation that's only in the Report and what's in media articles. dposse (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no, no... conclusions from the report. Of course not our own. THAT would be ridiculous. --Ali&#39;i 20:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahhh. I missed that. I really think we should stay away from using the report as a source, though. --Elliskev 20:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We will use the Report as a primary source of infomation, and back that up with third-party sources from the Media. dposse (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that we should do it the other way. Only use the report as a backup to a third-party source. --Elliskev 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? That makes no sense. The report is, by definition, a primary source of infomation. All media articles that follow are third party sources. I think this topic is discussed in WP:V dposse (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You know what? Forget it. I've already cited WP:BLP where it specifically says "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims." Go ahead and ignore it. I can't do anything more here. --Elliskev 20:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I've inserted two secondary sources anyway, so let's move on. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:53, 12/13/2007
 * For anyone wondering, WP:PSTS was what i was talking about. the Mitchell Report is a primary source and can be used as a source, but only if it's backed up by a secondary source such as a media article. We will and can do that. May this be the end of this debate. dposse (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Using the Mitchell Report only if it's backed up by a third-party source is exactly what I've been saying all along. Nothing else. Just that. --Elliskev 21:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. Then we can both get to work on this article. dposse (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the best idea yet. The only improvement on that would be to scrap the list altogether and turn it into prose. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-12-13 21:05Z

I like the table idea. When I was reading the report, I was wondering why the page numbers on the actual report don't agree with the page numbers indicated for the PDF file. How does that work? I stuck in a first sentence to conform with WP:LEAD and WP:MOSBOLD, but it was a bad first sentence; I hope someone will fix it. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Page 1 in your PDF program is the cover. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-12-13 21:09Z


 * Actually, it's because the first 40 or so pages of the PDF are the executive summary and the TOC, and the real report starts thereafter. --Ali&#39;i 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If we changed it into prose, then we'd probably have to change the title of the page to "Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report". dposse (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What about removing the columns, making each player a subsection and adding prose to each subsection? --Elliskev 21:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So more like:


 * Rick Ankiel

Rick Ankiel was alleged to have bought human growth hormone online. Ankiel initially admitted to legal use, but the Commissioner's office determined there was "insufficient evidence of a violation" to punish him. (Mitchell Report pages 243-244)


 * John Rocker

John Rocker was alleged to have recieved two prescriptions for human growth hormone in 2003. He initially denied the charge, but a spokesperson later admitted, "that Rocker had been prescribed human growth hormone in connection with shoulder surgery." (Mitchell Report page 254)


 * Etc.? --Ali&#39;i 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah. --Elliskev 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't need to change it into prose. A list would fit with WP:SAL. But if we do turn it into prose, there's no reason for it to be a separate article from Mitchell Report. A subheading for each player would be a bit clumsy. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:25, 12/13/2007


 * We don't need to, no. I think that it would be better to provide some context as to why each name is in the list. The reason to have it separate from the report article is to keep the report article broad in its focus and to centralize this information. We could get rid of this article and just make a statement on every player's individual article page. I don't think that would be useful. --Elliskev 21:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ali'i's idea provides context as well. I think it's the best idea thus far, the only problem is implementing it. Who wants to read through the report and find exactly what's said about each player? <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:33, 12/13/2007

Ali'i, your chart is useful, handsome and concise. Please implement it. Kingturtle (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Note: All ALLEGATIONS and CONCLUSIONS should be taken only from The Mitchell Report (with references to page numbers) because this article is specifically about players named in the report. Kingturtle (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (CONFLICT) So, someone agrees that the page numbers of the Report should be included as sources? Sweet. dposse (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree with that. Page numbers should be required. The report is pretty long and no one would be able to verify anything without page numbers. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:34, 12/13/2007
 * That means that somebody actually has to comb through the entire Report. I do not envy the person who takes on that task... dposse (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow... imagine that... someone might actualy have to do actual work to write an article. :-) I'm more than willing to help in this regard. --Ali&#39;i 21:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so do we want to go ahead with the format of the chart (near the top of this section) or the prose (a little bit above this sentence)? I'm eager to get started, but don't really want to have to change back once I've started. If we can build a rough consensus here, we can begin. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 22:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the look of the chart. I'd also like someway to put in some explanatory information when needed. --Elliskev 22:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Easy enough to put a Notes column in (or something like that). Also, each box can contain as much as we want, so if there is a complicated case, we can just keep writing until it's explained. --Ali&#39;i 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Do you think we need the Team column? Sorry if I'm dragging this out... --Elliskev 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

When you say "Allegedly bought HGH online," you need page numbers from the report. Kingturtle (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that can be fixed... I was just mocking up some examples so we could decide what format to use. The details can come later. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 22:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that there should be a column on the specific players response; whether he denies or admits. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Has a format been decided upon? I signed off and now it looks like we're going with a prose/list? --Elliskev 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

External jumps
When you get a chance, please read WP:EL regarding external jumps in the text. We don't direct readers outside of Wiki; External jumps belong in External links or references. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a very relevant link and this is a special situation. There's a lot of concern over how this list will be perceived, so I think it's reasonable to include an inline external link to the report, in this case, to encourage people to judge the report for themselves rather than assuming that the list displayed is a list of "criminals". Maybe others disagree but that's my opinion. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:50, 12/13/2007

If you like to place a reference in that spot, ok, but please place external links at the end of the article. Kingturtle (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already said why this is a special situation, so respond to my reasoning if you disagree with it. The guideline is not steadfast (I believe it says "typically" in regard to external links going in a separate section) and there's also WP:IAR. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:54, 12/13/2007


 * I'm not sure it's necessary. And I hate when people write articles like that. I removed the entire sentence, since stating that the report can be found online is hardly relevant. What isn't online? :-) I think that an introductory paragraph can explain that just because you are listed, doesn't mean you are a criminal/steroider/etc. We just need to make sure that that is clear. Hopefully some context for each name (being discussed above) will help immensely. --Ali&#39;i 21:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The point of the link, of course, was not to inform people that the report was available online, but to direct them to it, encourage them to look at, and to judge it for themselves. If others disagree with me, that's fine, so long as you understand my rationale. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:59, 12/13/2007

Reliable sources: Blogs.
While the New York Times is a reliable sources, we must be careful and not use any blog in this article. Right now, we have a link to a New York Times blog as a reference. THat should probably be replaced with something else. dposse (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove it if you want. We have 4 other sources that show the same list so it doesn't matter. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:51, 12/13/2007
 * Done. dposse (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Is this still an issue, or can the merge banner be removed? --Elliskev 21:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's been virtually no discussion of it here, except to say that it's a bad idea, and at Talk:Mitchell Report there seems to be consensus for a separate article. I think we can safely remove the merge banner. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:10, 12/13/2007

This article is superfluous. I think it would be best to lump all this into the Michell Report article. Kingturtle (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Mitchell Report (baseball) and voice your concerns there. Best not to fragment the discussion. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:46, 12/13/2007

Incomplete
FWIW, the page as it currently exists is incomplete. For example, there isn't any mention of the report's discussion of Alex Cabrera (p. 94) or Ricky Stone (p. 230). We need to go through the report in a methodical manner and provide page citations where the various players' usage is discussed, as the current arrangement is somewhat haphazard. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Although i won't personally go through the entire 400 page report, that is a great idea. dposse (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are obviously correct. Cabrera has a big chunk in the report. We'll get to them all... give it time. We'll meet the deadline. :-) --Ali&#39;i 21:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Current events don't need to be tagged as incomplete. They're under ongoing development by definition. If you think something's missing, add it. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:50, 12/13/2007


 * Agree. the tag is repetitive. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine with the amount of information in the report, that it's going to be a VERY long work in progress. I really like the current format as is. --Raderick (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have seen multiple outside websites link to our list while stating the belief that it is complete. Even if the incomplete nature is obvious to you, there are apparently a large number of outsiders who aren't getting it. As such, I re-added the tag. Better safe than sorry, ne? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the incomplete message is important. Think of a page as a snapshot. If someone sees the snapshot, that person needs to know that it is incomplete. Kingturtle (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, a page is a snapshot. Any page. They're all works in progress, especially the new ones. We generally don't tag a page as incomplete because of that. People treating Wikipedia articles as unduly reliable is nothing new, and yet we don't combat that by including a disclaimer in each page. If you feel a page is incomplete, work on completing it instead of spending your effort figuring out how to tell everyone just how incomplete it is. Wikipedia articles are never complete, and it's up to the public to figure that out for themselves. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:33, 12/14/2007
 * This list will never be complete? Bull. There are only 88 players (by my count) who were fingered in the report. 88 isn't that imposing a number, particularly when you remember that most players have already been added. The presentation of the list may never be optimal, but that's a totally different thing... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is not up to the public to know that all Wikipedia articles are works-in-progress - especially considering that a number of websites mirror Wikipedia. As for the list being complete, at the rate we're going it will be close to complete by tomorrow. It certainly wasn't anything close to complete last night, and it was deserving of an incomplete notice. Kingturtle (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

references to the report
Uh, why are there six seperate references to the report? Are you planning on adding the page numbers later after you have a chance to look through the report? dposse (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if you are going to cite the report, you need to include where this information can be found in the report. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Benard???
I've heard Marvin "Mighty Mouse" Benard linked to steroids before, but he's not mentioned here. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 00:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, because the report is 400+ pages long and it was just released a few hours ago. Give us some time, okay? If that guy is in the Report, it'll get added soon. dposse (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers a must
When making references to the Report, please refer to page numbers. That is a must. Kingturtle (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We must start doing that now for all the references, not just the first two. dposse (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added page numbers to all the Mitchell Report citations after tracking down the quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great work! Kingturtle (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Active v. Retired players
Can we note which players are active versus retired? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We should note what years they were active in. For example, Roger Clemens would be 1984-Present dposse (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

try to paraphrase.
We should not be adding lengthy quotes from the text for every player. Please try to paraphrase. and be brief. Kingturtle (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And once we do that this list can probably be converted to a table, which will be a much better format for it. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:57, 12/14/2007

Editing Direct Quotes from the Mitchell Report
Please do not edit, reword or altercate the wording of these quotes in the "Allegation Excerpts from the Mitchell Report", unless it is to make a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregFD3S (talk • contribs) 17:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Table format
I converted to the table format. Couldn't add career details (teams/years) 'cause I don't know any of 'em. Feel free to add them if you know. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:15, 12/14/2007
 * Looks great! Kingturtle (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted (sorry)... don't think the table with the players' careers and everything was necessary. Seems better as a plain ol' list. What does everyone think? <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:24, 12/14/2007

Here's what the table looked like:

Anyone like that better than the present list format? I think it's unnecessarily bulky. The present list is much sleeker. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:30, 12/14/2007

It will be much easier to read in a table form. Kingturtle (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the revert (am I correct in thinking you just removed career information?). That info isn't directly relevant to this list, despite Mitchell having included it in the report. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The career info was required in the report as background info on where the player was and what they were doing at the times of each allegation. The report is long and tells a story for each player it names and wouldn't be complete without that info. This list is just a brief rundown of the allegations though, so career info isn't necessary, as you say. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 09:17, 12/14/2007


 * If it is decided to include each player's career team-info, please use the standard three-letter abbreviations for team names. Kingturtle (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it isn't necessary, but it is much more informative if we did put the career infomation on this page for each player. dposse (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like this is the most common sense way to do it - the way ESPN has theirs - Player, offense, page # http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3153646 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.137.139.5 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was wondering if maybe the page numbers should be in a column rather than in ref tags. Seems to me like that would be better. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:49, 12/15/2007

The list
Where did you get it? I have the list on my talk page from MLB.com --HPJoker (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Indication of current players
Shouldn't there be an indication of active players on the list? Jairus Garin (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Italics would work. Kingturtle (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ''How about also bold face. THe Home Run list shows current players in bold face? Jairus Garin (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That would work too. Let's see how it looks. Kingturtle (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Be Careful
I noticed (e.g., w/ Clemens) that testimony "showed" that he used PED certain years. I'm not sure what the standards are for Wikipedia, but Clemens denies the drug use, so perhaps it is better to say the use is alleged. 71.194.163.223 (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether Clemens denies it or not, we are quoting a report, a report that uses informant testimony and supporting documents, a report that interviews with more than 700 people, including 60 former players, and 115,000 pages of documents, including receipts, canceled checks, telephone records and e-mail messages. Clemens refused to answer questions to Mitchell.


 * We are not saying that Clemens used the drugs, we are saying the Mitchell Report says that Clemens used the drugs. Clemens won't sue us. He'd sue Mitchell or Selig. But he probably won't have a case. Kingturtle (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We're already saying it was alleged. The column header says "Mitchell Report allegation". <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:45, 12/15/2007

Italics?
What do the italics mean for names? --AW (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As it states on the page, italics are for current players.

Lots of vandalism
I already undid some vandalism on this page today. I would recommend that this page be protected from editing by newly registered or anonymous users for a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpachico (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Info in Radomsky's "book"
I noticed that many, if not most, of the player in the Radomski section had their contact info found in Radomski's address book seized by the feds. This is only noted in one or two entries in the table but applies to many. I figure this should be an all or nothing thing, so do you folks think the address info it notable and should be included in the table? Also, the work on this article has looked great so far! - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I included address book info for players where there was basically no other evidence of a connection other than Radomski's say-so. I think it's important that people know that there was something other than just his word, if there was (and not all his clients were found there, only some). <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:17, 12/17/2007

Players' post-report responses
As more player responses come out the table is going to get a bit confusing. For now I've divided the statements in the "allegation" column using italics for all post-report statements. I think we should keep to this format for now, and if most of the players end up responding, maybe we'll then add another column in the table for those responses. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:37, 12/16/2007
 * I think the italics are working well right now, and I agree that if many more come out a separate sections is appropriate. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Player responses
It might be better to paraphrase the responses rather than pasting quotes. The quotes are a bit long for a table. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:19, 12/19/2007


 * I had thought about it, but since this involves living people and potentially libelous accusations, I thought it better (at least for now) to actually quote their response. It's their response anyway. Since this isn't a paper encyclopedia, there is no real size limitation, and I would rather quote someone in this case than try and put words in their mouths. But ultimately it's a wiki, so if you feel so inclined, you could always edit them down. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 18:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)