Talk:Alec Baldwin

External links

The reference Alec Baldwin narrates the meat.org video actually shows a video narrated by Paul McCartney, not Alec. Suggest delete since not relevant to Alec, or else find the right reference. In fact, this also seems to question whether Alec actually narrated the Meet Your Meat video, since video evidence is lacking.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Alec Baldwin definitely narrated a video about meat production - you can buy the video [1] or watch it online [2], so I guess that's evidence (at least the DVD). I'll change the link. --Six words (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I replaced your link with one to a copy at peta.org, just to avoid any questions of copyvio. In the process, I looked at the other EL entries, possibly a mistake... Do we really need four separate links to speeches or comments he made in support of Peta? Isn't that covered in WP:EL somewhere? Fat&Happy (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall a rule saying something about that, but I agree that four is a bit much. One or two should suffice (“travelling animal acts” and “adressing congress” perhaps?). --Six words (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I watched the newly referenced video on google, and it makes a compelling case for vegetarism. But Alec does not introduce himself nor are there any end credits. It sounds like his voice, so I will accept that he narrated the video.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I question whether Baldwin's wiki page should include his tongue-in-cheek New Era Cap Company ads that are telecast to the New York/Northeast television audiences during Yankees/Red Sox baseball games. Theres deep interest in this part of country about the 100-year plus rivalry between the Boston Red Sox and the NYYankees! Hence, these very popular ads. If it's added (which I hope it will be) it possibly may appear in Baldwin's "personal" wiki section bc there's an existing comment about Baldwin being a life-long NYYankees fan in that section. BTW, these ads are very funny. New Era is hardly mentioned but the dual between Baldwin (TV's 30 Rock's star) as a die-hard Yankee fan versus John Krasinsky (TV's The Office star) as a die-hard Boston Red Sox fan runs deep and the ads play clever fun w/ it. And, the light-hearted comedy and digs between the two of them make excellent copy. Comments please? (As you can probably guess, I'm not very wiki astute as to writing or editing. So if this -- my two cents -- is in the wrong area, forgive me.) Oh, and if there's a Krasinsky page in wiki perhaps a similar insert would be okay in it.

Voicemail for daughter

Hi Rob, You wrote "Hi, please don't just start reverting , open a thread on the talkpage and see if any other contyributors think it is valuable content related to his notability, imo its worthless trivia and attacking in nature and unduely personal - such content is not what we are looking to create here. Open a discussion here" The fact is that I made an edit and you reverted. As for "valuable", "worthless trivia", "attacking in nature" etc. etc., those are your personal opinions. This matter received wide publicity and says a lot about the man, and is hence notable. Regards, Nevadaone (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC) -

Its unduly personal and has nothing to do with his notability and unworthy of addition to a wikipedia biography. Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob. How is that notable? People leave angry messages on answering machines every day - so do actors. What it says about those people is they were pissed off because the person they wanted to speak to wasn't picking up. That it says “a lot about the man” is, in due respect, just a personal opinion, too, and unless you gain consensus for this addition it won't go into the article. --Six words (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, he also claimed he "very serious," about killing himself. That should be included in any article about a person. References provided. Nevadaone (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess you misunderstood me: there has to be consensus before you include this. Also, the ‘Daily Mail’ and magazines like it are terrible sources and fail our sourcing guideline. --Six words (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That last addition was worse than the first. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"there has to be consensus before you include this". Not true, there does not need to be consensus before information such as suicides or suicidal thoughts are included. If there is controversy over the inclusion, then there can be discussion aimed at reaching a consensus. And btw, 2 out of 3 does not make consensus, and your version requires consensus no more and no less than my version. Nevadaone (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"That last addition was worse than the first." I would agree that the last addition makes Baldwin look worse, however it is not the job of Wiki to make anyone look bad or good. The job is to accurately report all factual information. Nevadaone (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That right, factual information worthy of reporting, educational and informative which this is not - simply having a citation is no gold badge that demands inclusion, we have also editorial consideration. This is not a tabloid publication or a celebrity magazine, its an online encyclopedia. Your last addition would be perfect in a celebrity magazine bought for a doller when a housewife was a bit bored. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to denigrate "doller" publications, it may be a good idea to learn to spell it first. Anyway, if you believe that suicidal thoughts are not relevant for Wiki, we will have to ask many other editors for their opinion. Nevadaone (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You can request comments here. --Six words (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Before I RFC, can I know exactly what you are objecting to?

Sources? Or, the fact that suicidal thoughts were included? Or that what caused suicidal thoughts was included?

20:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevadaone (talk • contribs)

As I have already said, I don't think its worthy of a wikipedia WP:BLP because it is imo , trivia and basically attacking in nature and unduly personal and unrelated to any facet of his notability. It also appears to me to be cited to such as the People and the daily mail and the content as written would, as I have said, sit better in a celebrity magazine. All it tells us about him is that he is a normal human being with typical issues such as teenage daughters and a divorced wife and that he has emotions. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts of suicide are not trivia. You may have a problem with celebrity magazines and your standard may be that Wikipedia should not stoop to their standards. My recommendation to you would be you should put up Wiki articles on Paris Hilton and the Kardashians up for deletion. Anyway, I find your arguments highly unpersuasive, and not enough to justify a RFC. If you disagree with my edits then you can start as RFC. Do note that you lack consensus for your views just like I lack for mine. Regards, Nevadaone (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Suicidal thoughts commented on in an autobiography are unworthy of reporting here, the publisher wants something to sell, if he had actually done it that would be worthy of reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I already said that I object both to the way this paragraph was worded and some of the sources. Please note that when in doubt, WP:BLP tells us to err on the side of caution. IOW: until you gain consensus for this paragraph (in a reworded form), don't add it. --Six words (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I can't agree with any of the above reasoning. If an individual says he was "on the brink of suicide", then it is worthy of being included in an article about him. The objections to the text being included keep shifting and none are convincing.

• Sources: Six writes he objects to "some of the sources". This is absurd. It is enough to have one good source. ABC News is definitely RS as is Baldwin's own autobiography.
• WP:BLP concerns are invalid, the suicidal thoughts are not allegations, but something Baldwin himself publicized (wrote in his autobiography).
• Six objects to "way this paragraph was worded". Sorry, what Wiki guideline are you using here? In any case, if you don't like the wording then re-word, don't delete!

Finally, it appears that neither I nor those who wish to remove this material have consensus. If they wish to remove the text I suggest they RfC.

Regards, Nevadaone (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what you want to include is already in the article. As I objected to the wording (and the weight you put on this), I didn't care to check this earlier. Nor did you, it seems. About the RfC, you're wrong, inclusion needs consensus, keeping status quo has consensus (until a new one forms). --Six words (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are actually right. Everything I wanted included is already in the article, some in more detail. So the present article is acceptable to me. Have a good day! Nevadaone (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what constitutes "consensus" when it comes to controversial topics in public taste. It looks like Alec is a master of insensitivity. It bothers me that Fat&Happy thinks it is OK to publish vile words said by Alec about Henry Hyde (advocating his death and all his family - because it was newsworthy); and yet Fat&Happy wants to censor another of Alec's public rages against his own family. This is all very inconsistent. I have an opinion but don't consider that a consensus breaker - be consistent - I prefer to leave in the references to both but tone down both the HH comment and the family comment.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Fat&Happy hasn't even commented in this section, so what's the inconsistency here? --Six words (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Fat&Happy - you are correct. Fat&Happy endorsed keeping the HH comments, but Nevadaone wanted to keep similar harsh comments in place about family issues. My mistake. Still, my point is that inconsistency remains. Regards, --74.107.74.39 (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Political Donations

I see a link at the bottom page for his contributions. I think (below) should be added so people SEE what he has contributed with out going to external link:

$67,002 Democrat $500 Green $1,000 Independent $75,700 special interest total: $144,202

I see it on most conservative bios but it seems hidden here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.23.133 (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Birthplace

I have read several bios on the actor, and several of them stated his birthplace as Amityville, New York. But yet, it states here Massapequa. Either this is the truth or we dun goofed on the POB. RAP (talk) 1:31 28 October 2011

If we goofed, then so did Brittanica. http://books.google.com/books?id=0EniB-D24w4C&pg=PA38&dq=alec+baldwin+massapequa+1958 (and lots of other sources as well...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've commented the birthplace out; please work this out instead of edit warring (Rusted Auto Parts, you're heading for a block if you revert again-- you do not seem to understand Wikipedia's sourcing policies, please read them and do not change the text again until this is sorted). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I provided a source from biography.com, the site that accompanies the Bio channel. It said Amityville. Now, i'm sure a website and channel dedicated to biographies wouldn't make a mistake like that. RAP (talk) 19:35 28 October 2011

*snorfle*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what your response means. RAP (talk) 19:50 28 October 2011

I don't know how we can resolve this if no one is still talking. Sarek, what do you mean by "snorfle"? RAP (talk) 22:44 28 October 2011

Is this still a matter we need to continue or am i just being ignored? All i want to do is determine which POB is the correct one. RAP (talk) 17:55 29 October 2011

It would help if you spent some time reading WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. When sources conflict, we develop consensus based on examining the qaulity of the sources and the reasons they may conflict-- we don't just say "I found a source that supports my assertion, to hell with the rest" and shove it in there. Now, please go do the scholarship before edit warring something in there. Neither am I impressed by a bio at biography.com (it would make me "snorfle" too, but then edit warring over towns 3 miles apart, without consulting a preponderance of sources, is just goofy). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines. Now all that's left to do is determine if Sarek is still apart of this discussion, or has he transcended it with his "snorfle" response. RAP (talk) 1:51 31 October 2011

Text I want to be include it got dumped

I try to insert this text and other editor helps me to fix my English, but other editor have dumped it:

Baldwin's commercials for the grocery store Wegmans were originally pulled due to the American Airlines cell phone incident, but the store has since reinstated them.

Can we discuss to add? --B767-500 (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Too bad the article lists nothing of either Wegmans or AA. Baldwin deserves such notoriety. --173.69.135.105 (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)