Talk:Adam Baldwin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:




Contents

[edit] Political Views removed

NPOV material removed from article [with MSM cleanup that would have been applied to a liberal]:

Adam Baldwin is a proponent of conservative values. He is pro-Iraq war. He recommends his fans read books such as those by David Horowitz and Rush Limbaugh. He is one of Rush Limbaugh's biggest fans and quotes him online on fan boards devoted to his work. He has publicly expressed disgust for Democrats and liberals online. One example of many: http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages?msg=13716.14108

Many other examples of his reading and idealogies [sic] can be found on that forum. He says he's proud of his ideology, so this should stay here in any description of him.the preceding unsigned comment is by 207.69.139.157 (talk • contribs) {}

Just as a quick note, that's actually POV material (it expresses a point of view) - Wikipedia strives for NPOV. Good removal! --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 06:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Apart from being POV, is it certain that the forum user is really the Adam Baldwin concerned? Perhaps it is a "fan" who is over zealous? Just because Adam Baldwin may or may not have publicly voiced his support of the US' actions doesn't make him "far-right" or "neo-con". ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.126.214.137 (talk ? contribs) 14:24, 25 March 2006 (URC).

[edit] Movies

I'm reasonably certain this guy was in the Patriot as the American officer in the British Dragoons. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.29.227.4 (talk ? contribs) 04:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Political views removed again

I just removed the following: "Politically, he is an unabashed conservative." I know Adam and he doesn't sound like this: neither in syntax nor word choice. I don't know what his politics are but unless someone has proof the actor and this internet poster are the same person none of this poltical stuff has any point in being in this article. Filchyboy 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin confirms in this interview that it's him posting to the Firefly boards. Joss Whedon also alludes here and here to Baldwin's conservative politics. --Muchness 12:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Sounds like people are whitewashing his profile. It isn't POV to say "Adam Baldwin expresses belief in X." It would be POV to say "Adam Baldwin expresses belief in X, and X is totally better than Y." ?Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.249.133 (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

While I respect Wikipedia's stance on being NPOV, I'm curious if there's any sort of guidance regarding relevance. I bring this up because I just finished looking at Kate Mulgrew's entry on here and there's absolutely no mention of her politics, save for the fact that she's married to a politician (it doesn't even designate HIS political affiliations), and yet I've known on many occasions at fan conventions for her to go on a (liberal) political tear. I find that this is the case all across Wikipedia, that individuals with left-leaning political viewpoints are glossed over or not even mentioned, but those with right-leaning stances (such as Adam Baldwin or Angie Harmon - and yes, he is VERY conservative), it's treated as if it is extremely relevant, even when the liberal is more active politically (as is the case with Kate Mulgrew vs. Adam Baldwin).

Now I don't mean to suggest that one or the other approach is more correct (i.e., should the political info be in or not). My personal thought is that it should depend on how active the person is politically. That is, Adam is conservative and can be quite unabashed about it, but to date he's just posted on a few fan boards and irritated some of his castmates; for him, it shouldn't be relevant. Angie Harmon, on the other hand, has spoken at the Republican National Convention, making it relevant for her. Kate Mulgrew, that's a toss-up - she was merely expressing a personal opinion in a public forum, but not as some sort of "official" voice of the party.

I'll make it even easier - rather than talking about a person as being conservative or liberal, perhaps just report on specific verifiable political outings they've been involved in, i.e., Angie Harmon spoke at the RNC, and let the reader make their own call as to her politics. In the case of Adam Baldwin, I think that means it's not relevant in his case because he's not made any official political appearances like an RNC speech - though that can become relevant should he ever decide to do so. Nolefan32 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relation to Baldwin brothers?

Does Adam Baldwin have any relation to the Baldwin brothers? Hackwrench 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the IMDB article (linked from the article here), he is not. Perhaps that should be included, seeing as many people who are not familiar with him assume he is related to them.Rockhopper10r 15:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baldwin's politics.

I don't see why all mentions of Baldwin's conservative political beliefs have been removed from this article, when prominent liberal actors often have their partisan affiliation mentioned in their Wiki articles. Example: I just came from Scarlett Johannson's page and she has two or three sentences on her being a Democrat, etc.

I am going to add his party affiliation to this article, in the biography section, as there is no "Personal life" section. If such a section is created, feel free to move the comment there.

-Troy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.161.40 (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentions are fine, but they need verifiable citations to back them up. --Chuck Sirloin (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Why does his political affiliations matter? He's not a politician or a pundit, he's an actor. Nolefan32 (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As an actor, he's a public figure, albeit not the most famous one but still thus capable of influencing public opinion, thus his political beliefs are worthy of being mentioned. Plus I believe is amazing how this guy, being a conservative and all, worked for shows with a fairly liberal philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzalo84 (talkcontribs) 17:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I don't care either way. I'd like a consistent standard for this applied to all celebrity bio pages, but Wikipedia doesn't care about consistency. And what do you mean by "shows with a fairly liberal philosophy"? If you meant shows with casts that have a "liberal philosophy", then that's pretty much what all conservative actors in Hollywood have to deal with, isn't it? --70.128.116.146 (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That's my viewpoint, too - the standard isn't consistent. And the fact that he is a celebrity, I don't think his political viewpoints or his views on anything else under the sun should be considered significant enough for inclusion until such time as he begins *officially* stating them. That is, unless he's stumping for political candidates or slated to speak at the Republican National Convention, it's not worthy of mention. The dividing line shouldn't be that Actor X is a Republican, Democrat, or whatever, it should be is he an ACTIVE Republican, Democrat, etc. (active, as in Sean Penn or Angie Harmon's level of activity). Nolefan32 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin Sheen, for example, has been arrested multiple times during protests and is very publically upfront about his views and political beliefs. For his entry, it merits mentioning his ideology. Adam Baldwin, on the other hand, has not been publically involved in any political activities nor has supported any candidates and so on. Postings on the internet hardly makes him any different than anyone else, celebrity or not. And not for nothing, but the people who keep crying about how it's "whitewashing" not to mention what he believes, pretty much tip their hand as to what THEY believe and what their motives are. Hint, it isn't making the best Wiki article so much as being angry at Mr. Baldwin for having a different viewpoint from their own. Wiki NPOV exists for a reason. (76.201.154.234 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC))