Talk:Alec Baldwin

Hairy Chest / Sex Symbol

Alec Baldwin is very well known as a sex symbol (especially true in his younger days), and wins "Best Chest Hair" contests repeatedly online. I was surprised to see that there's no mention of this in the article. It's something that he's VERY well known for. I can assure you that any article of Dolly Parton or Raquel Welch would mention the physical attribute they're best known for (their breasts), so why is this not true of Baldwin? Is it the "men vs. women" thing, or is this more homophobia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.226.142 (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Suicide attempt

I heard on the news a few weeks ago that he chugged a bottle of pills after threatening suicide and the daughter that he called a pig helped him to get medical treatment. The story then vanished from the face of the earth. Was I dreaming this, was it not true, or did you just not include it? I would think that would be relevant to the PERSONAL LIFE section. Also, I wonder if I could get the editor of this article to get me Mr. Baldwin's autograph since you two are so close? THANKS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.166.99 (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing in the news about a suicide attempt or his "chugging a bottle of pills". He was taken to the hospital, which is all the news said. We don't include gossip. As for your contention that the editor get you an autograph, don't count on it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

SNL Appearance with Sarah Palin (Political Views)

I apologize in advance for the length of this summary. I am interested in some conversation on a dispute I am having with Wildhartlivie.

I posted a paragraph about Baldwin's defense of his appearance with Sarah Palin on SNL in 2008. He was derided by liberals within his own party for this and responded on the Huffington Post.

When I first posted the content Wildhartlivie deleted it in its entirety saying "a minor incident and not deserving of this much attention in context to the rest of his career, don't need the whole skit recounted"

I reposted it back, asking "Why delete the entire contribution (if any of it)? Second, is relevant in that it goes to his defense of good sportsmanship in politics."

Wildhartlivie deleted it in its entirety again saying, "Undue weight of trivial content" and pointing to the guidelines section on "undue weight"

I replied, "You cite "undue weight" without elaboration. Is _any_ weight undue weight? Criticism of his appearance with Palin from within his own party gives it weight. Second citation added."

Fat&Happy then made three edits (which I have no problem with), streamlining the content (trimming particularly the skit recap) and cutting its length in half.

Wildhartlivie then deleted it again in its entirety, saying, "undue weight to add this much content for one television appearance, it's a comedy show for heaven's sake, it means nothing"

My reply (with re-post of the content) was, "So even after Fat&Happy edited it down, it's still "undue weight"? (_Any_ weight whatsoever is "undue".) Criticism from the left gives it weight. Another citation added."

Wildhartlivie again took it down in its entirety saying, "yes WP:UNDUE, recounting one sketch from one appearance on a guest spot and repeating a blog post and using blogs for references is undue weight"

Fat&Happy and I think the content has merit. Wildhartlivie does not. Fat&Happy commented to me on his talk page that he considers the content worthwhile, saying, "If nothing else, it adds a bit of NPOV to the section, which otherwise makes him sound like a raving liberal terrorist assassin."

What do the rest of you think? Should the content remain or go? And if we can't reach a consensus, what is the mechanism for resolving this dispute? I don't want to carry on an "undo button" battle forever. I've been editing Wikipedia in small measure for years and this is the first time I've ever had any content submission summarily deleted. So I am unfamiliar with how this plays out.

The content I want to retain is here: [[1]] (scroll to the last paragraph in the Political Views section).

The original (first, longer, pre-Fat&Happy content submission) is here: [[2]].

Regards,

MirelesJ (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but in fact, we are talking about the rather weighty addition of content that amounts to 2164 kb of text to the article at last count to the section on Political views, which had 6741 kb of content, and of 2286 kb at its top length, that essentially recounts in great detail of a sketch on Saturday Night Live, included commentary on the program itself and its decision to have Palin on it, and winds up with content sourced from a typepad.com source. The recounting of the contents and discussion of a Saturday Night Live sketch expanded the size of the Political views section by over 32%. There is not a compelling enough reason to retain this content, or give it this much weight. A four minute SNL sketch didn't generate this much attention when it was aired. Effectively, we are including a comedy sketch outline, a typepad.com source and recounted a column's content. The editor of that typepad page, and the page itself neither are notable enough to warrant an article here. There is nothing in this article that even approaches this much weight and giving it as it is amounts to excessive attention to what amounts to an extremely minor incident in the career of Alec Baldwin. It is not that relevant to the rest of Baldwin's career, or what makes him notable. This is not the type of content that should dominate and render the rest of his career out of balance. It is a Saturday Night Live sketch. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A problem with comparing the raw size of a segment with the raw size of the total is that the better sourced a segment is, the more it can be faulted for reflecting "undue weight". Not claiming that this incident is impeccably sourced, just pointing out a flaw in the above argument.

In it's most recent form, the disputed anecdote consisted of 726 characters of displayed content, including spaces. (That's bytes, BTW, not kb.) It comprised ~18% of the "Political views" section, down from 1,379 bytes (~28%) as originally posted – a substantial first-pass reduction. Further trimming might be possible, but efforts at improvement are discouraged by repetitive reversion with a simple parroting of "undue weight", "undue weight", "undue weight" and no suggestions for improvement, despite the implication in the original reversion edit summary, "not deserving of this much attention … don't need the whole skit recounted", that the objection was to length, not mere presence.

Looking at the "Political views" section as it stands, one must wonder what makes the SNL incident so objectionable as opposed to:

• A quick comment in an interview which was primarily about the show 30 Rock and filled with flip comments and references,
• Comments by Baldwin on Huffington Post, sourced entirely from that blog (and a link to a non-existent site of questionable reliability even if it existed originally),
• Comments, meant as a joke, on another late-night comedy show,
• Comments on yet another late-night entertainment-comedy show, again meant as a joke, regarding mail-order brides and having nothing to do with "political views",
• Comments on still one more comedy show, eight years ago, again not presented as directly concerning politics, resulting in the threat of a law suit, never – if the issue is reported accurately – followed through on.

Would the consensus be that these comments, which taken in toto give the section a definite anti-Baldwin POV, should all be deleted as "trivial"? Or am I being pointy in suggesting equivalent treatment of equivalent incidents? Fat&Happy (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So we've heard from me, Wildhartlivie and Fat&Happy. Some of the rest of you who have contributed to the article should weigh in.

Engr105th, Boris Crépeau, Pinkadelica, Bosleybin, Bob98133, FstrthnU, all of you have contributed in some way in the past two years to this article and this discussion. What do you think? Regards, MirelesJ (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I am attempting to contact all other users who have contributed to this discussion page since the beginning of 2008. Wildhartlivie, is there someone else you want to have weigh in on this? Regards, MirelesJ (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The best way to get more input in a dispute is to either ask for a third opinion or open an WP:RfC. Contacting a slew of editors who just happened to have worked on the article in the past year or so probably isn't all that productive as some of us just did minor vanity edits (I'm speaking for myself here) and don't even have the article wathclisted. Anyhoo, since I'm here I might as well comment. If there's a reliable source to support that this one sketch was in fact notable (ie caused considered controversy, etc.), I can see including. If not, it's just one of many SNL skits Baldwin has appeared in and isn't worthy of inclusion per WP:UNDUE. I also cannot see including it simply because it "adds a bit of NPOV to the section, which otherwise makes him sound like a raving liberal terrorist assassin." If there's a problem with that section or if someone feels like it is unbalanced, fix the section. Don't add more unneeded content into the section in a vain attempt to balance it out because that will not fix anything. Pinkadelica^♣ 06:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me as if canvassing for responses here has brought one, although mass requests for responses aren't really appropriate. Pinkadelica made a suggestion, I think the WP:RfC is the best. My comments on this addition do not mean the other issues in that section are the best, it should be pared down. Far too much weight is given all of the political points, but none so much as this one. It simply isn't worthy of inclusion. He participated in a skit on Saturday Night Live. It doesn't make him suddenly a Republican, nor does it mean that anything he said in the skit wasn't scripted. It doesn't mean anything. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been editing this article in a long time, except perhaps to correct vandalism, but since I've been asked to contribute, I will. I agree with Wildhart. This is minor point, a comedy sketch. It is not equivalent to a senator changing political parties or anything like that. I don't object to a slight mention, but anything more than that would be WP:UNDUE. Bob98133 (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Pinkadelica and Bob98133, very much for replying. I appreciate your points and you taking the time to chime in. FYI, I didn't make a mass canvas, at least I don't think so. (Of course that may depend on your threshold for the word "mass". For some that means 100. For some that may mean three or ten.) In any case, I took a chance to ask six recent (since 2008) editors here to participate, not knowing how they would respond or what position they might take, and I did so not in secret, but publicly and transparently (and invited Wildhartlivie to do the same). I encourage your views, even if you disagree with me. You are not as invested in this issue as Wildhartlivie and I are.

From my perspective, what gives this incident weight is not that Baldwin appeared in a skit on SNL. He has appeared in dozens of skits. He even memorably played a slimy boy scout leader, without provoking a critical reaction (or garnering a mention on Wikipedia). What gives this incident weight is two aspects of it. That he appeared with Palin, his political opposite, and, secondly, that his political friends reacted with sharp criticism, which he felt a need to defend himself against. He was criticized not by entertainment reviewers for his acting or his comedy, but by his political allies for being nice to Palin, for humanizing her and for jeopardizing their chances for electoral success in November. The critics (it seems to me) cared not whether it was SNL or a soup commercial or a baseball game. What mattered was the pairing and Baldwin's consideration of Palin. So it is not the skit that is weighty (Wildhartlivie was right: we didn't need the whole skit recounted). Rather, it is the reaction to it. And Baldwin's defense was picked up by cnn.com, latimes.com, reuters.com, democraticunderground.com, guardian.co.uk and scores of lesser outlets and blogs. Indeed, if it was just about appearing in a skit , it should not be mentioned any more than the boy scout skit.

Should I switch gears to ask for a third opinion or open an WP:RfC at this point? I am more than willing to do so. I not a veteran of these kinds of proceedings and would cheerfully move this to a more appropriate forum.

Or, Wildhartlivie, would you be willing to accept a shorter edit, such as the version Fat&Happy pared down from my original post? Or Bob98133, perhaps you can suggest some wording we might be able to agree on?

Respectfully, MirelesJ (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's funny you mention the boy scout leader, that sketch where he made a pass at Adam Sandler and kissed him drew a much greater reaction. I'm not keen on inviting more responses here personally, one doesn't need to limit requests to respond to violate WP:CANVASS and doing so is a huge issue. Two or three requests can be an issue. I am firmly opposed to recounting the comedy sketch in this article, which tends to beg the copyright question, nor am I comfortable with recounting something published elsewhere. I'm not much interested in what Baldwin had to say about it, nor am I interested in what was said on SNL. If this is a huge political issue, the sources are there. If they aren't, it isn't that big an issue to recount it. It was 3 years ago, after all. It's the same point as other issues in the political section, most of this stuff is over and done with. It didn't have long term effect. Baldwin tends to go off and rant over a lot of things, but afterward, they fairly much fade. I think this is one of those issues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So it seems that as far as the Political views section goes, we pretty much agree the SNL sketch is merely the tip of the iceberg – or garbage scow – as it were. In an effort to return the section to some level of encyclopedic respectability, I suggest:

• dropping the SNL skit entirely,
• combining the current 1st and 2nd paragraphs into one,,reworking the resultant paragraph, especially eliminating but summarizing the direct quotes, and
• deleting the remainder of the current content.

Any comments on this proposal? Fat&Happy (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to take a closer look a little later when I have more time, but yeah, overall, this section is reaching critical overload. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, you are right about the boy scout skit, I discover now. It provoked criticism that it implied pedophilia. I stand corrected on that.

I think a brief recounting of the plot of the Palin skit would not run afoul of copyright concerns. It would be acceptable under fair use. It was reviewed in great detail in scores of news stories on the event, and Wikipedia includes thousands of plot summaries, from movies to TV shows to books to comedy sketches that raise no copyright issues. But for purposes of this, I would be satisfied to merely include a one sentence mention of the skit itself in the same manner as it is presented in Saturday_Night_Live_parodies_of_Sarah_Palin#Further_Palin_sketches, provided the political reaction is part of the story. That is what makes it meaningful.

I am very interested in what Baldwin had to say about it because it addressed sportsmanship and fair play in political discourse, which is significant in our ever more partisan-charged political atmosphere. It is still relevant today. And not just I am interested. His own political allies took interest (annoyance) in his appearance with Palin. And in one case at least, the criticism continued afterwards (cited in my last attempted edit). All of this is why, IMHO, this belongs in the political section.

However, it appears I will be unable to persuade the group to include this. I will make no further efforts to post it.

What disappoints me, Wildhartlivie, is that you appeared to shift your position. Your original objection was "a minor incident and not deserving of this much attention in context to the rest of his career, don't need the whole skit recounted". This seemed to suggest that

• Less attention would be acceptable to you.
• Shorter recap of the skit would be acceptable to you.

As Fat&Happy opined on 14 April, your first reaction seemed to imply "that the objection was to length, not mere presence."

However, you continued to delete all attempted edits (from two different editors) meant to justify the original weight given, or to give it less weight and/or to cut the skit summary in an attempt to satisfy your apparent original concerns. Three of us have suggested here that mentioning this incident may be acceptable. But while I have been willing to move in your direction, you seem have backed away from me, raising new issues as you go and taking an increasingly hard line. Now you are at the point where you have stated, "It simply isn't worthy of inclusion." and "It doesn't mean anything." (emphasis yours).

As I said, I concede the contribution and will not attempt to include it again. Respectfully, MirelesJ (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: if Baldwin has involved himself enough in politics & activism in recent years (as I think he has) to merit having a sizeable chunk of his Wiki bio (para.4)devoted to it, then some mention of his appearance with Palin on a venue like SNL is noteworthy, imho. I'd keep it succinct however, and ensure it's proportional in importance to the rest of Para 4. Btw, I don't entirely agree w/ a lot of the "trivial" tags i sometimes see on Wiki - I mean, what better place to note things that might be intriguing or interesting to another reader/researcher ? Long as the item is true ! Engr105th (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to have missed is the agreement that the politics section is overburdened and is in bad need of a trim. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, ok...i agree. I was responding, belatedly, to a request from another poster. But I don't really have a dog in this fight. Engr105th (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Language nitpicking

In the sixth line of the article it is stated that 'As of 2010 he [Alec Baldwin] stars as Jack Donaghy on the NBC sitcom 30 Rock.'. Although linguistically speaking it isn't really 'wrong', the use of words is confusing and somewhat misdirecting since the initial interpretation of many readers will be that he has been on the show since 2010, while actually he has been on the show since the start, in 2007. A clearer alternative would be 'Since 2007 he stars...' or 'Currently he stars...' --RojoRocket (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)