Talk:Roberto Alomar

Hall of Fame?
Looking at the numbers he's got hore hits and a higher BA than Sandberg, also more AS selections and gold gloves too. Prolly the greatest 2B of the 90's, it's only a matter of time that he gets in, which begs the question, when is he eligible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.88.230 (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Level of Excellence
Roberto Alomar is NOT currently on the Jays Level of Excellence. He probably will be in the future, but the article suggests Alomar will be on there in the summer of '07. Well summer has passed and he's not up there yet. BlueJays.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.151.57 (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As of April 4th of 2008 Roberto Alomar is on the Toronto BlueJay's Level of Excelence!

AIDS
I was just watching the news here in the NY/NJ/CT Tri-state area(WABC 7) and it said that he has full-blown AIDS and that he is being sued for giving it to some female. I am kind of surpirsed that is no on this page. AIDS is a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Article probably needs semi-protect status. The news did not say that he has aids. The news says that an ex-lover alleges that he has AIDS. That is a very critical distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.221.211 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Is putting him in the "HIV Positive people" category and saying that his lawyers wouldn't deny that he has AIDS really appropriate after the ESPN article saying that he claims to be in good health? The article is http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3900719 75.57.173.207 (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the 'HIV-positive people' tag. This information needs to be 100%        confirmed     by a reliable source (WP:RS) to be appropriately added here. 92708S (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and what I've seen of the lawsuit seems to be completely out of touch with how things actually work with regards to transmission of HIV. If he had unprotected sex with her while knowingly HIV positive, he should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. However, I fail to see how he should be forced to pay $15 million when he didn't even infect her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.173.207 (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The case info in New York Eastern District Court http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/new-york/nyedce/1:2009cv00514/288753/ Next hearing is 4/15/09 pdf of the full case http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/1:2009cv00514/288753/1/0.pdf Satanico (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that certain information regarding the lawsuit contravenes WP:BLP which reads in part:

"Basic human dignity

Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

AIDS is obviously a serious illness as well as an intensely private matter for most sufferers. Until it has been 100% confirmed that Mr. Alomar is indeed suffering from this illness, I suggest that any speculations/allegations with regard to his health be removed immediately from this article.

92708S (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Until there's a much more reliable source than the Daily News' gossip column and the Smoking Gun website, these speculations should be aggressively removed as soon as they are added. You are protected from WP:3RR sanctions in such a case; see WP:BLP. If it's repeatedly re-added, please take it straight to WP:AN/I so that the source can be blocked. arimareiji (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed by many, many other news sources, including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, ABC News, and Fox. The one thing we have to be careful of is not to state anything as fact which at present is only an allegation, but the story seems to easily pass the inclusion criteria. Perhaps the cited sources were not sufficient. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PSWG - I disagree with 92708S about it needing 100% confirmation. It very well may in the future be confirmed or denied beyond the claims of an embittered ex-girlfriend, and that would be a ridiculously high standard. But at present, all we have is a lot of "We're picking up on the NY Daily News gossip column's uncritical repetition of wording from a lawsuit and repeating various allies' denials, and some WP:OR of 'His defenders don't explicitly say he doesn't have AIDS.'" Pertinent sections from WP:BLP, in addition to the one 92708S named:
 * "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." (Presumption of privacy)
 * "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." (Reliable sources#Reliable_sources)
 * "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." (Lede)
 * Right now, all we have is an echo chamber of bylines repeating a claim that was uncritically aired in a tabloid (literally) that's generally useful for fish-wrapping. Ask anyone who's lived in New York how reliable they consider it to be. I do think this smoke will eventually reveal fire - either that he has AIDS, or that he has a psycho ex-gf. But right now, it's too early to speculate. arimareiji (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely think that there has been a lot of valid points raised here. I would certainly be more comfortable if information regarding Mr. Alomar's health status was independently reported by a more reliable source.  Also, I will concede that the "100%" confirmation bar is likely too high, but without confirmation or denial from either Alomar or a person representing him, I really don't think we have enough substance to report on claims as to his HIV/AIDS status. 92708S (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This raises an interesting BLP question. I don't see the issue of "echo chambers" addressed in the policy, and it probably should be. In regards to "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives", I would say in this case it would not be the primary vehicle of such. Once multiple mainstream national news sources have repeated the "gossip", the damage is pretty much done, and continuing to exclude any mention of it only puts Wikipedia way behind the curve. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that among other points unaddressed, a key one is "Avoid repeating gossip." Not "Avoid repeating gossip until someone else repeats it." Others include "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist," "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy," "Ask yourself whether... even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject," "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper," and "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered."
 * Whether true or not, is this particularly probative to his baseball career? Or to "inquiring minds [who] want to know"?
 * Is there a significant amount of harm engendered in this accusation (and at this point, no substantiation has emerged to make it more than an accusation)?
 * Is the harm engendered proportional to how probative it is? arimareiji (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read the lawsuit it sure seems probative to ending his baseball career. Athletes with HIV are more relevant to contact sports but it still could be a concern in baseball. Also it is alleged his Dr. put him on steroids for medical reasons. We may soon see if either Dr. named in the lawsuit testifies to add credibility to the issue. Satanico (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Sorry i've never done this before and i hope im getting it right, I agree with the one person, the status of his health should not be posted here like it was in that NY tabloid, sure the lawsuit looks damaging, but there's a couple things to remember, she didn't file suit until he broke it off with her and proceeded to sell the home she lived in, And acording to her she continued to live with Mr. Alomar for another 2 years after being informed of the status of his health, I can't say for sure what the truth is, and no one can right now, to me it looks like a woman scorned, but it may well not be, but until such evidence is brought out to show the truth i think this topic is off limits, And who cares if this site falls behind by not reporting on it, i'd rather wait and be right then be hasty and be wrong and sued for every damn penny i have! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.198.98 (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I know that the article should not say that Roberto Alomar has AIDS, but the article needs make mention of the recent law suit filed against him. This is an indisputed fact, that is  notable and sourced by highly credible places, regarding the subject of the article.Fodient (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

^ Absolutely correct. He is/was in the midst of a lawsuit with serious allegations. Deciding whether these allegations are true or not is not what Wikipedia is for. However, what it is for is reporting relevant happenings in the lives of the people the page is about. Is this not relevant? It needs to be reported, and I also think the incident where he spit in the face of an umpire should also be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.190.75 (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Lawsuit dropped. Guess little info on this will be forthcoming. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4142266 Satanico (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The working draft News suppression seems to be somewhat relevant here. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The section on the lawsuit and the HIV/AIDS claims is properly sourced, definitely newsworthy as it relates to a matter in the public record (a lawsuit) concerning a public figure, and is written in an unbiased manner. To quote someone above who I think makes a great point: "He is/was in the midst of a lawsuit with serious allegations. Deciding whether these allegations are true or not is not what Wikipedia is for. However, what it is for is reporting relevant happenings in the lives of the people the page is about.  Is this not relevant?" Nowhere in what I have written does the text say he has HIV or AIDS. It simply states the facts. I also made sure to write it in a way that achieves balance by including his public statement on the matters at issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegomgarcia (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how the most recent edit by Barek makes the section more balanced? If anything positive comes from the edit, it is just brevity. In doing so, I believe the revised section fails to provide important details. Furthermore, the revised section should certainly NOT paraphrase Alomar's statement on the matter. Any section discussing an allegation against a person, especially one that implicates that person's reputation, should include any statements/denials (verbatim) by that person regarding the allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegomgarcia (talk • contribs) 22:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, Vyvyan Ade Basterd's explanation below for deleting my section on the HIV allegations/lawsuit is extremely illogical:

"No. Not happening. No way. We are not a tabloid and we are not here to report on frivilous lawsuits meant to destroy living people. I don't care if you have a source, this is entirely irrelevant to his career which is what makes him notable."

Essentially, Vyvyan Ade Basterd's argument is:

1) Because Alomar is famous for playing baseball, any mention of a lawsuit against him (or anything else not about baseball) is "irrelevant." 2) Even though the section (on the lawsuit) is properly sourced and widely reported public information, it is improper to mention the lawsuit anyway. 3) The lawsuit is "frivilous" (sic), therefore, it should not be included in a Wikipedia entry. I wonder, who determined that the lawsuit was "frivilous" (sic) and "meant to destroy" Alomar???  Was that you, Mr. Basterd?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegomgarcia (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame
Alomar will be inducted into the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame on June 19, 2010. A source for this can be found at http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/postedsports/archive/2010/01/28/alomar-quantrill-join-canadian-baseball-hall-of-fame.aspx

Sorry, not overly proficient with Wikipedia and how to insert this information properly into the Article with the proper sourcing and possible inter-wiki link to the Canadian Hall of fame.

I was wondering if someone more proficent in properly inserting information could add this to the article?--69.41.192.218 (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.26.237.244, 5 January 2011
please add the category Category:National Baseball Hall of Fame inductees

173.26.237.244 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I could be wrong, and this may seem like nitpicking, but technically he hasn't been inducted yet. He's been voted in by the baseball writers, but his ceremony hasn't occurred yet.  CarbonX (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * the request was about the CANADIAN hall of fame. He's been inducted there already. Echoedmyron (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. I made an inaccurate assumption...apologies.   CarbonX (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ "National" Baseball Hall of Fame refers to the one in Cooperstown, to which Alomar has been elected but not yet inducted. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry aboutthat - somehow I got my wires crossed, and was looking at the section above this one, which was talking about the Canadian Hall. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How do I add a link
We have great and unique biographies of the history of baseball and want to add links to those articles, each time I do they get removed. I also noticed several sites, such as The Baseball Cube have a "cube|" (player id) how did they get that Id from wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleebbets (talk • contribs) 19:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As this would impact a large number of pages, you should probably post the question at either the external links noticeboard or WikiProject Baseball |mets=y|halloffame=yes|halloffame-importance=|bluejays=yes. This is just the talk-page for Roberto Alomar.  Alternately, you could also post the question on your own user talk page, with a helpme tag above the question to draw attention - although they would most likely just direct you to the two other pages I already listed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of HIV transmission
Have opened a discussion at the BLP noticeboard on this subject here. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alomar Golden Glove award.jpg

Lot of awards in "Post-playing activities"
I can't cut and paste, but these honourary celebrations are more passive than active, organized by others, and should belong in Legacy instead. Aye? Nay? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I renamed that section "Post-playing honors and activities" as somewhat of a compromise. Blackjays1 (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)