Talk:Alec Baldwin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] born

in one part of the page it says he was born in new york. but in the bio it says he was born in france?? 72.223.81.74 19:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] filmography?

whoa. a single film listed in the filmography? a SINGLE movie? even the picture of his face is from a movie that ISN'T the single movie listed!

ouch. i'll add in Glengarry Glenn Rose and some other things, but I can't put dates. so it's gonna be cheap, but oh well.

well, i just noticed there's a PARAGRAPHICAL filmography. heh. not very complete though. i can't do much better.


Added a picture. ^pirate 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The filmography is missing the circa 1999 film "Nuremberg" which also starred Christopher Plummer and Brain Cox (as Hermann Goering). Anybody know how to add that ? Engr105th (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alec Baldwin in Relationships

Hello,

[ A link he spammed this page with ] is meant to give the visitor a wide angle view of how Alec Baldwin handles his relationships in essence and in practice. It also allows the visitor to examine the characteristics of his own relationships with Alec Baldwin.

Both content and test are based on sound astrological knowledge and research which gained vast popularity among web surfers.

I believe that even though Astrology is not considered a mainstream science, these knowledge and compatibility tool should be made available to whomever wishes to study Alec Baldwin as broadly as possible.

I have no desire to be considered a spammer and I don't want to force [ a link he spammed this page with ] on the founders of Alec Baldwin's article.

I ask you, authors of Alec Baldwin that if you have an objection to placing a link to [ a link he successfully added to the johnny depp article in the External Links section, please write it here. Else, I’ll place the link hoping that it would be a valid resource for Alec Baldwin's fans and researchers.

With appreciation, Midas touch 08:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


I just noted this Midas guy has spammed numerous movie star related articles with the astrology site he is promoting. Since the links do not belong in the article I edited the link out of the talk page to deny him the ability to use the talk page to promote his venture. Mr Christopher 22:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychotic Episodes

Here's Alec having a little heart-to-heart with his daughter. Kim 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarianism

I found conflicting information on the extent of Alec Baldwin's vegetarianism (he's currently listed as a vegetarian). According to this webpage, he's only a semi-vegetarian. Aragorn2 18:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


poop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.56.171 (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish ancestry

Although Alec Baldwin has frequently identified his paternal line as Irish, this ethnic identification appears to be more sociological than genealogical. According to several online family trees, the Baldwins of Brooklyn are of old New England Yankee stock, descendants of John Baldwin an Englishman who settled in Connecticut in the 17th century. Alec's paternal grandmother was Ruth Noble of Edwards, St. Lawrence County, NY. According to several online histories of Edwards, the Nobles were Scottish immigrants who settled in Edwards in the early 19th century. Alec's great grandmother (his father's father's mother), although born in England, did have the very Irish name of Helen Irene McNamara, so he does apparently have some Irish blood on his father's side. Bebill 06:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This Helen McNamara's parents were Irish.[1] That does appear to be the only Irish connection Mad Jack 02:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Documentary

There was a discovery channel documentary he was in? What was it? And can someone include it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.205.70.254 (talk • contribs) 21:19 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The name of the show was Walking with Cavemen and I've added it to his TV appearances. --Pixelface 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Pacific

Someone recently (18-Jan 2006) added, to the main article, a sentence asking why Baldwin's appearance in South Pacific on PBS wasn't mentioned in the section on his television work. The credit already appears in the section on his stage work.

[edit] Under Trivia - Sydney Basketball Team the Rabbitohs?

To my knowledge the only team in Sydney Australia named the Rabbitohs is a National Rugby League (NRL) team which is an Australian adpatation of Rugby. Wikipedia itself has an article on the Rabbitohs - conicidentally Russel Crowe owns the team. Tius 09:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship with Kim Basinger and daughter, Ireland

Threatening, expletive-strewn phone message to 11-year old daughter linked here: http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_audio/0419_baldwin.mp3


This "controversy" is the stupidest thing I have ever witnessed on television. Were the Anna Nicole reporters hungry for a new story? This is a private matter between a father and his daughter, and the only reason that it is notable is because the mother violated a court order and released the information. SHE VIOLATED A DIRECT COURT ORDER!!! For Wikipedia to post this information for the public to see is irresponsible, just as it is irresponsible for every television show that describes it. If a family court judge has decided that it is in the best interest of the child to not have these matters discussed in public, I don't know why Wikipedia doesn't honor that important determination. Bluefield 14:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's notable And pretty big in his life; after being accused of abusing his former wife during their marriage he is caught red-handed abusing his own daughter. So no, it wouldn't be irresponcible for wikipedia to post this information for the public to see. In fact it's the right thing to do. What makes you an authority in wikipedia anyway?--58.107.168.72 15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I have reread my comment above a few times and I can't seem to locate the sentence where I claimed to be an authority on Wikipedia. It is a question of ethics, respect for the justice system and common decency when it comes to protecting a child from mental anguish. And if you think this is an example of somebody abusing their child, you are either not a parent or have no concept of what abuse or neglect are. Talking harshly to your child is hardly abuse, it is an example of a parent losing their temper and nothing more. Bluefield 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It's blatant abuse, dude. - 81.179.76.53 18:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bluefield wrote: "If a family court judge has decided that it is in the best interest of the child to not have these matters discussed in public, I don't know why Wikipedia doesn't honor that important determination." I agree wholeheartedly. --Kslain 19:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the page as I feel the incident with his daughter didn't need to be an entirely different subject as it relates to Kim Basinger. Amme88 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't "blatant abuse, dude". I worked as a child protective specialist for 4 years, and this wouldn't even warrant a report of inadequate guardianship. Look up a legal definition for abuse or event neglect before you start to throw those words around. The article could reference the audio tape, but there is no need to document the contents of the message. Bluefield 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's over the telephone, from someone who doesn't live there, recorded for others to witness, with other adults taking action against it. That all would seem to make it relatively trivial. Some children hear this sort of thing every day, in person, with no opposition. Richard K. Carson 03:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
A few points from an outside editor. I cannot stand alec baldwin, never could but the daughter controversy is written in a NPOV tone and lacks tantilizing details, this is probably good (the lack of tantilizing details in this article). And any father who calls his 11 year old daughter a pig is guilty of verbal abuse, maybe not CPS abuse (CPS is a useless organization anyhow), but it's abuse and pathetic. Mr Christopher 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


Yeah CPS is pretty useless. Any organization that helps to prevent fathers from raping their daughters and mothers from beating their babies to death is always bad in my book. I'm with you Mr. Christopher....if they aren't big enough to defend themselves, well then they deserve to get beat up right? Idiot. Bluefield 12:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This thoughtless little pig thing has taken on a life of its own. Several web sites are selling "thoughtless little pig" t-shirts and such. Baldwin quit CAA yeasterday. It will be interesting to see where his career goes from here. Mr Christopher 17:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to stop deleting the "little pig" references because it is obvious that some editors here don't care about the court order or the damage that the references to this voice mail will do to the kid. Part of the solution or part of the problem. Bluefield 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as the kid goes, I believe the damage has already been done long before the little pig comments made it into this article. I just don't see little Ireland sitting in some psychiatrist's chair one day saying "My life was peaches and cream until some editor on Wikipedia quoted my dad calling me a thoughtless little pig". It's hard to imagine.
You see, Baldwin left his comments to her on her cell phone. That means she has already heard what he had to say prior to anyone editing this article. And the court order did not mention Wikipedia citing published sources, in fact I am not aware of the court order including any members of the media. Mr Christopher 20:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure it would be constitutional for a court ordert to even do so. Wikipedia is free to quote as much as it needs to, as long as it's notable and verifiable (which at this point, it is both). Disposable Rob 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That what the name of God would be the purpose of the gag order if it didn't apply to members of the media? Don't talk about your custody battle to the local butcher or the guy at the gas station? Of course she heard the message already on her phone, it is the repetition of this message that will damage her in society. Wikipedia is a part of the damage, not the sole cause or even a primary cause by any stretch of the imagination, but the message alone wouldn't have caused even a 1/10th of the damage that the rapid reporting of this story has done. And how did the story get out to allow for all of this reporting? By the violation of a court ordered gag order. So the court order didn't have to mention Wikipedia or every single publication by name, the parents were told to not discuss it with ANYBODY, especially reporters, and the mother decided to ignore that to curry public favor. Bluefield 20:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that indicates the mother leaked the voice mail?> That should be included in the article as well. Mr Christopher 17:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This cannot be reported on wikipedia. It is BREAKING the law. This is a private matter and only people with no life actually would report it. Alec Baldwin is a free American and is free to treat a child however he wants to. My parent's have yelled at me far worse. IT is the same thing as me starting an article on parent "x" who lives in a quite suburb who has done nothing notible, one day parent "x" gets in a fight with their child and the child goes onto wikipedia and starts an article about it. It is the same thing. What makes Alec Baldwin more special when he gets in a fight with a child it is reported on wikipedia but when Shmitty McGee gets in a fight with his child, there is no article. This section must be deleted. ALSO, i see that some users have posted comments citing some of the specific things he said like "little pig" and other things, saying that this is verbal abuse. How the hell is it your issue to start commenting on what your oppinion of verbal abbuse is? It is called common sense and not some hippy "politically correct" nonsense. It is up to the government to decide that. Leave the poor guy alone and get a life. --Toccsevobal 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This can be reported, unless you can prove otherwise (cite something, don't just proclaim it) it is not breaking the law. This is extremely notable as it's discussed frequently on television and radio, and has majour news coverage. Your personal experiences and beliefs do not take weight over the viability of this section of the article. Gh5046 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then, I will create a page about some person i knew who got in a fight with their child. I am a exceptible reference. Who knows, the media could all be lying. And also, it is breaking the law. There is a court order against his x-wife reporting something like this to the media. It is blaitant disrespect and Alec Baldwin should have no problem saying that he does not feel sorry. --Toccsevobal 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

First, please read Wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view, and second the court order is for his ex-wife, not any media outlets or anything else. The cat is out of the bag, just let it go. Gh5046 02:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I included the entire transcript of what he said on the voicemail and removed the select quotes that were cherrypicked from the tape by some editors here. Providing context for what he said makes more sense than just taking the "highlight" quotes and throwing them up here for a little character assassination. Bluefield 20:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The intimate, tabloid details of an angry message from a father to his daughter is not the material for an encyclopedia. You can link to it, but it is not notable material for inclusion here. If you cannot understand this, we need a RfC. Skopp (Talk) 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, the principal of undue weight is hopelessly contravened by the inclusion of this lengthy quote. It makes up a goodly portion of the entire article, which is far too much. WP:WEIGHT states: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Skopp (Talk) 00:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship on Wiki

Censorship on Wiki? What happened to the factual post of AB being asshole liberal of the year?

It's not censorship, it's maintaining a neutral point of view which the term "asshole" almost embodies the very antonym of the term "neutral." Another thing to note is keeping certain that, being an encyclopedia, a person is not slandered here as per the living persons biography guideline. Another thing of note is that the term also fails (yes, a third failure) to avoid the original research guideline. So censorship it is not, but adhering to basic guidelines it is. Now, I'm not disputing what you're saying for a moment, but you'd show more intelligence by illustrating why and how he's an asshole with encyclopedic content indicative of this. As to him being a liberal, that's a verified and confirmed fact illustrated throughout the article, so that doesn't need any further confirmation. It's the best thing I can suggest. --lincalinca 04:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Picture

Alec Baldwin's picture should be changed, it is hard to recognize him with all that beard goin on. I though the still of him from 30 Rock was perfect in that it was a perfectly recognizable image from him and it was an image of him from a current TV show in which he stars. The picture should at least be changed to him without the facial hair. --Orangefizzlebiz 03:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The "30 Rock" image you're referring to is copyrighted. The current image was uploaded under the creative commons license, so it is preferable. If the image was uploaded under the wrong license (I don't know if the wikipedian took it themselves or what rules there are around the usage of flickr photos) then the image can be changed back. Gh5046 04:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ye gods, that picture is frightening! --Howdybob 14:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of his famous chest?

What? No mention of Alec Baldwin's much photographed and discussed furry chest?! When he was a younger, studly dude, Baldwin was constantly put in scenes in which he wore no shirt (example: "Miami Blues"). It appears much of his fame can be attributed not only to his good looks, but his exceptionally hairy chest. Not mentioning this is like not mentioning Dolly Parton's notable bosoms.Buddmar 05:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)buddmar

[edit] BLP text moved here

In 2002, conservative internet blogger Matt Drudge threatened to sue Baldwin for his appearance on the Howard Stern show, during which Baldwin claimed that Drudge was gay and had tried to hit on him in the hallway at ABC studios in Los Angeles when he was doing the Gloria Allred show.[1] No other action was taken by Drudge.

I moved this text here since I have searched the archives and can't find any article with Baldwin or Drudge on 8/06/2002. I think it would be better to track it down and make sure it exists before posting. IMDB on it's own shouldn't be used since they don't guarantee the information on their pages is accurate. --PTR 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again. The new ref added is to a fansite and doesn't mention the lawsuit. If necessary, I will post this on BLP. --PTR 13:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but it still lists the page six article as the primary source. If we can locate that article then I have no problem including this but as posted on WP:BLP:
We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. --PTR 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and post it to BLP. Sources do not have to be available online, as long as we can reliably say they were published, and there are enough secondary sources to confirm that (sources that have stood unchallenged (IMBD, MediaLife) for over 5 years).   Skopp   14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll post. I agree they don't have to be available online but they should be able to be located if they are from a source that has archives. Perhaps this article was left out but I just want to make sure it's not one of those stories that "everyone has heard." --PTR 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Article

Let me have your attention for a moment! Let's talk about something important! This article is appalling. No structure, full of bullsh*t, lacking all sorts of notable facts that should be there. Whoever wrote this article - you call yourself a Wikipedia editor, you son of a bitch? You people can't write a biography of a world famous actor, you can't write sh*t, you ARE sh*t, hit the bricks boys and beat it 'cause you are going out!!! You can't play in a man's game. You can't write a decent Wiki article. Because only one thing counts in this life! Get your article to GA status! You hear me, you f*cking f*ggots?! You know what it takes to be a Wikipedia editor? It takes brass balls to be a Wikipedia editor. Why am I here? I came here because Jimbo Wales asked me to, he asked me for a favour. I said, the real favour, follow my advice and fire your f*cking asses because a loser is a loser. Sort this article out boys or hit the bricks! Alec Baldwin 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Article Redux

I agree that there are odd gaps in the article. No one says anything about his famous battle with alcoholism, or why his face is bloated and covered in liver spots. Also, the article hardly explains how he rose to stardom nor does it do anything but a weak job of explaining his working relationship with his other famous brothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.42.82 (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Per Previous Poster's Comments

While the majority of material in most of the sections appears to be fairly accurate and unbiased, the author of the Politics section has driven the tone of the content down to the level of what one would expect to see in a publication such as the National Enquirer. Although the author attempts to couch the material in a semi-journalistic framework, it is clearly gossipy, base and extremely biased against Mr. Baldwin. I have not encountered anything remotely resembling this in any other bio piece I've read on Wikipedia. I am going to edit the section out and will continue to edit it out whenever I see it until some steps are taken by someone in authority at Wikipedia to correct this. This is unwarranted, unprecedented and unprofessional. MiraMcB 11/26/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiraMcB (talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your good faith edits and I'd like to discuss why. First, I personally do not believe the section to be completely over-the-top biased, though bias may exist. The entire section is very well documented and referenced, and, for those topics which it discusses, it clearly makes an effort to remain neutral. There is a lot of good information in those paragraphs, and I do not believe it violates WP:BLP (seeing as how it is very well sourced). If you or anyone else is concerned with the neutrality of the section, I highly encourage you to rewrite it towards a more NPOV, or tag it appropriately. But outright deletion seems excessive in this case. Of course, I could be completely off base, and if so please let me know where. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pov/sourcing tags

The politics section of this article is in dire straights. Very pov and non-encyclopedic. The sourcing is primarily from blogs and that just will not due. I am going to hack and slash this section as per wp:blp and remove all unsourced and contentious material. And Frank, Wp:blp does take precedence over content concerns. Feel free to re-add any material that is npov and has proper sourcing. The Huffington Post and NewsMax will not fly. Turtlescrubber 02:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact the page needs to be cleaned up and then semi-protected to stop the almost daily vandalism. ► RATEL ◄ 04:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

On that note who is Bob Elmore and why is it notable that Baldwin has criticized him on his website? 140.140.58.8 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basinger and that phone call

In an attempt to end the edit war with Inamaka, let me say this;

  1. The phone call between Baldwin and his child is private. That he called her a "thoughtless pig" is trivia given undue weight. We all call our children things like this when angry. The fact that this private call was leaked to the press in defiance of a court order is deplorable, and for wikipedia to compound the crime by promulgating the issue and reproducing the content is inexcusable. If anyone has enough prurient interest in the issue, they can hunt it down on the web. The subject, Baldwin, is extremely upset these comments were made public in contravention of a court order, and he has taken legal action over the issue, so printing them here is a direct contravention of WP:BLP.
Let's see you attacked my misspelling of Baysinger's name. Therefore, I must point out that you can't spell and I must point out that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Above you clearly misspell the word promulgating. You spelling incorrect by typing, "prolumgating." The correct spelling is promulgating. Your lack of ability to spell had to be pointed out because you felt the need to attack me personally concerning a misspelled word that I typed.--InaMaka (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Next topic: You make the completely incorrect comment above that (and I quote you directly): "We all call our children things like this when angry." First of all, your comment that ALL people do this is not true. You have no reliable source to base that personal opinion of yours on. I have NEVER called my child anything close to Baldwin's disrespectful words and I NEVER will. At any rate, this is not a valid argument to exclude valid reliably sourced information. You go out of your way to list huge amounts of negative information about Baysinger, but you will not allow even a little taste of the nastiness that Baldwin spit on his child that day. Your editing is biased toward Baldwin's view of the confrontation. Also, you believe that only your version of Baldwin's horrible verbal attack on his child is the only acceptable version--which violates the principles of Wikipedia. You have falsely accused me of engaging in "vandalism" when I make edits. You have falsely accused me of violating 3RR. You are not editing in good faith. Please attempt to see another side of the topic.--InaMaka (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to give anyone's "view" of anything (this is not the Jerry Springer Show, even if you'd like to turn it into that), and to claim I have listed "huge amounts of negative information about Baysinger(sic)" is laughable — all I noted was her history in this affair, nothing more, with one well-cited comment! You do not seem to understand that the comments he made to his child were illegally leaked to the press. Baldwin is suing over the matter. There is no way that this encyclopedia should repeat this private conversation, or intrude on this sub judice matter. Re-read WP:BLP, because you clearly do not understand it yet. ► RATEL ◄ 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. The article does not attack Basinger (not "Baysinger" as you keep mispelling it) by noting that she has disobeyed other court orders. It is merely a (cited) statement of fact; readers can draw their own conclusions. It is certainly not a contravention of BLP. If you insist on contesting this, we'll take it to the BLP Noticeboard for a ruling. ► RATEL ◄ 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we should take it to the Noticeboard.--InaMaka (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If one other editor supports this, I will do so, or you can do it yourself (it's so obvious that I am right, hardly worth it). ► RATEL ◄ 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

You guys know there's a picture of him on the Jack Donaghy page right?

Never mind, I should read properly before posting... My bad.