Talk:Alec Baldwin/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

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) - — Nevadaone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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[1] pulled due to the American Airlines cell phone incident, but the store has since reinstated them. [2]

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)

Undue and soapboxing

An anon IP obviously with an ax to grind has inserted an entire two-paragraph section of unproven allegations with the incendiary, non-NPOV subhead "Hate Crime Investigation" and the WP:WEASEL-word "reportedly", here. This is based on a run-in with a paparazzi, as happens with celebrities every day and is hardly notable — we don't list every paparazzi run-in of Ashton Kutcher or Tom Cruise or whomever. Aside from the subhead-title vio, this section is WP:SOAPBOXING and WP:UNDUE. The editor also appears to be an IP hopper: 74.248.61.112 and 74.248.49.146.

Before we have to go to an WP:RfC on this, I'd like to ask third-party editors for their thoughts. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

We can't trust the source as reliable since they are the ones making all the accusations. We should leave it out until charges are laid, if any. We can remove it now as BLP contentiuos until we seek consensus on inclusion and wording.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record, there are now three registered editors — the two above and Sjones23 — who have now reverted the contentious allegations over which anon IPs have been edit-warring in violation of WP:BLP. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Clearly because he's a political lightning rod this article draws undue-weight attacks. The section on his purportedly homophobic tweets is WP:UNDUE trivial — nothing in his history of support for numerous liberal causes or anything he has written or said in a serious forum suggests he is a homophobe. To draw that conclusion based on two or three angry tweets in response to false allegations is a leap of logic. A case might be made for anger-management issues, but that's another thing entirely. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

How about Baldwin's own comments on the issue? http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/alec-baldwin-blames-fundamentalist-wing-of-gay-advocacy-for-msnbc-firing-20132711 Hcobb (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Does the 'Stalking incident' section belong in the article?

This article currently has a small section about a woman called Genevieve Sabourin who allegedly stalked Baldwin and was prosecuted in 2013. This seems to me more like tabloid fodder than something that belongs in Baldwin's biography, unless it was a particularly significant event in his life. The section is also problematic for BLP reasons, in that it doesn't give the result of the trial - it simply says she was charged with stalking him and leaves it unfinished there. I don't know if she was found guilty or not, but if not, it definitely shouldn't be included. Robofish (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Leaving public life

Is this worth a mention in the article? http://www.vulture.com/2014/02/alec-baldwin-good-bye-public-life.html Andise1 (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting rant and sort of a fun read. And, though I wasn't paying full attention, the ladies on The View, at least, seemed to be commenting on it this morning. But it really doesn't contain much substance. In a sort of disclaimer he says, "And, admittedly, this is how I feel in February of 2014." I'm not sure we have enough here to add meaningfully to the article until he takes some action (moving to LA, buying a large gated mansion, whatever) or more third-party sources make something significant out of this. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Gay Slurs

In the opening section, there is a mention of his being fired from his show, but the section doesn't mention why he was fired. That would seem to be an important fact to add. It makes sense to include the reason he was fired. Even the article that is included as a reference is titled, "Pack your bags, Alec! MSNBC fires Baldwin over anti-gay slurs," so why not include "[He was fired]... ...after making anti-gay slurs..." or some variation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.17.76.43 (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

'That article' is in a tabloid that has had numerous instances of hostile interactions between the subject and the tabloid's paparazzi. Also consider that the tabloid is known for right-leaning bias, etc. There couldn't be a more biased source on the subject than TMZ or the tabloid mentioned. I don't think either are a good source.216.96.233.118 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

He and Janine Turner

There is no mention of his past relationship with Janine Turner. Off course, if that is mentioned, the fact that he left her standing at the altar would also have to be mentioned. Is recalling that in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines?__209.179.93.170 (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

Why there are TWO sections of awards and nominations? MiewEN (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Two mentions of talk show

There are two mentions of the cancellation of Up Late with Alec Baldwin, both in the show section and the political views section. They state almost the same information. Could someone remove one of the mentions, or at least condense the second one? StewdioMACK (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends

He was not on the show from 1999 until 2003, some IP Address user made the information incorrect and false like that, and it's wrong. he was on it from 1998 to 2002. It even say's it in the article, Thomas & Friends, that he was on the show around that time. 66.30.56.82 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Trust me, it's not false at all. No matter which admin I tell, No one freaking believes me!, look at the Thomas & Friends'' article yourselfs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.56.82 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image

Is there seriously not a better infobox image of Baldwin than one with his windblown hair sticking up at weird angles? It went up June 17, 2015, and while it's newer than the previous, 2008 image, it's hardly a representative image and puts the subject needlessly in a bad light. We're not supposed to use infobox images that in effect if not intention ridicule the subject. Thoughts?--Tenebrae (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Busboy

On the occupation section information box, it should mention he was busboy, actor, comedian and producer. Gochyooo (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

He was a busboy for a while when young at Studio 54 according to himself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjyL7fv8Dmk - if this is notworthy is up to consensus comments, imo it could be notworthy and could be added to his early life section but not to his occupations. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alec Baldwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Match Game

Could someone please add the news that Baldwin will be hosting a revival of the game show Match Game as the news has been announced today via TVLine.

http://tvline.com/2016/04/28/match-game-reboot-abc-alec-baldwin-host/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.toscano.12 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

-I added the info. Someone reverted it afterwards. 174.104.34.62 (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Source and undue weight

Good source to consider: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/arts/television/a-tangerine-wig-and-a-tightrope-walk-alec-baldwin-as-donald-j-trump.html?contentCollection=weekendreads&_r=0

Also several sections in this article are really out of weight with the whole (see "due weight"). The stalking incident doesn't need its own section but should be a sentence or two in a holistic overview of his personal life, as covered in reliable sources. I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 03:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Alec Baldwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alec Baldwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comedian?

Resolved

@Hitcher vs. Candyman: With all due respect to a fellow editor, once his initial edit to a long-stable passage was reverted, protocol per WP:BRD is to discuss the issue on the talk page. He argues, reasonably enough, that Christopher Walken, like Baldwin, has been on SNL. But aside from the fact Baldwin regularly appears there not as a host but as a member of a comic ensemble, and given he's won Emmy Awards for comedy, I think the latter, at the very least, makes it reasonable to call him a comedian. A standup comic? No. Comedian, yes. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae:: John Lithgow has earned three Emmy Awards for comedy for his work in 3rd Rock from the Sun, but he isn't considered a comedian. Per WP:PROVEIT, do you have a reliable source that verifies Baldwin is a comedian? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hitcher vs. Candyman: Fair enough. I'll find something if you give me a minute. And actually, I'm entirely perplexed why a three-time Emmy-winner for comedy isn't listed as a comedian on Wikipedia. But anyway, gimme a minute.-Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This ought to do it: He's starred as one of the comedians in Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee: http://comediansincarsgettingcoffee.com/alec-baldwin-just-a-lazy-shiftless-bastard. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't mean to pile on, but there's also The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/02/alec-baldwins-donald-trump-impression-on-saturday-night-live-hits-the-mark-but-doesnt-go-deep/

From the voice and the facial expressions to the tan and the poorly tailored suit, Alec Baldwin rocketed to the top of the Donald Trump impersonators list on "Saturday Night Live" this weekend. The comedian flat-out nailed Trump's many idiosyncrasies.

--Tenebrae (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I suggest you use The Washington Post article as the source to cite. All in all, I'm officially convinced. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hitcher vs. Candyman: Cool. Love the "Resolved" box. I'll use it! Thank you for a collegial discussion. --!!!!

It's still an extremely loose definition of "comedian." By that definition anyone who hosted SNL, or starred in a comedy movie or TV show, or appeared on Jerry Seinfeld's show would be considered a comedian. John Goodman, Ted Danson, Sarah Jessica Parker, Michael J. Fox, Sam Rockwell, Charlie Sheen, and Woody Harrelson have all been on comedy shows and/or hosted SNL, but they're not comedians. Barack Obama was on Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, and obviously he's not a comedian. Robert Downey Jr. was an SNL cast member and he's been in comedy movies, but nobody would call him a comedian. Even if someone who writes for the Washington Post called him a comedian, it doesn't make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.212.66 (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Even Seinfeld called SJP's appearance on his show (within the episode) not so fulfilling of the show's title--I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 19:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. One Washington Post writer is not the arbiter of what a comedian is. I'd trust Jerry Seinfeld's opinion on the subject over some nameless journalist. If Al Pacino did one good impression and appeared every week on SNL doing it, he doesn't all the sudden get labeled a "comedian." Sean Penn does a good Brando impression. He did the impression on a comedy show (Conan). Does that make Sean Penn a comedian? Of course not.

Born 1954?

he was born in 1954 DexterFilmFan999 (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Got proof?!Crboyer (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
No, he won't have, as he was a sock of User:FaisalMusicFan99 - Arjayay (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)-

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2019

If someone could please remove "voice actor" from his occupation section, that would be good. Because it kinda unnecessary to include in there because the term "Actor" already covers his voice over work. 2600:1000:B079:DC52:71AA:281C:13EA:E778 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done: please see Special:Diff/927113407. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 12:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2020

Can you put one more row in the filmography in the film section in 2021 section, which is the movie, Animal Crossing, The role that Alec Baldwin played in that movie is the voice of Blathers? SarujanTheSRJN (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. What Animal Crossing movie?Crboyer (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Wife's first name is actually spelled "Hillary", not one "L"

Alec's wife's first name is actually spelled "Hillary", as it is elsewhere on this page and in her own Wikipedia article, but not one "L", as in the info box. I wanted to change it but can't edit, so maybe someone else can fix it. Thanks. 76.236.220.28 (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The number of children is incorrect

He now has six children with his current wife, so the total he has now is seven Kbutterly (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021

Remove the youngest child’s name from appearing twice in the list of all children. 67.44.209.139 (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've just removed the whole listing (which included further egregious intrusion of privacy). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Manslaughter?

"A prop gun discharged by Alec Baldwin killed a film crew member on set, sheriff says" "Halyna Hutchins, the director of photography, was airlifted to a hospital where she was pronounced dead. Production on the Western movie Rust has been halted."[3]?

References

  1. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57351904-10391698/alec-baldwin-ads-pulled-by-grocery-chain/
  2. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/alec-baldwin-tv-ads_n_1183086.html
  3. ^ A prop gun discharged by Alec Baldwin killed a film crew member on set, sheriff says. NPR. 10/21/2021. Accessed 19.21.2021.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021 (3)

I think it would be prudent to delete the "murderer" designation from Alec Baldwin's biography: "Alexander Rae Baldwin III (born April 3, 1958) is an American actor, writer, comedian, film producer, murderer, and political activist."

Yes, he accidentally killed someone due to an on-set accident, but he hasn't been convicted as a murderer. This accident literally just happened earlier today.[1]

I suggest that the entry should be: "Alexander Rae Baldwin III (born April 3, 1958) is an American actor, writer, comedian, film producer, and political activist." 2600:1006:B045:BE71:C031:14C:3F6E:7CE4 (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed Wyliepedia @ 05:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021 (4)

Most recent update on the prop gun incident has the wrong date, should be the 21st, not 22nd. 2600:8807:C24F:5700:543E:360B:71D3:20D1 (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed Wyliepedia @ 05:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


NYT reports "Alec Baldwin Fatally Shoots Crew Member With Prop Firearm, Authorities Say"

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/us/alec-baldwin-shooting-rust-movie.html 158.123.57.63 (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021 (5)

I want to add a redirect to prop firearms with this link Theatrical property#Prop weapons Doggycatdog (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done I assume you meant a wikilink in the section containing the prop gun? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I recommend removing this sentence "Baldwin was questioned and released; the investigation is ongoing." It lacks specific detail about who is conducting the investigation and the euphemism "investigation is ongoing" is a a little vague. WP:EUPHEMISMWritethisway (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Added more detail. --Chillabit (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Persona Non Grata

On May 20, 2009, American actor Alec Baldwin was declared persona non grata by the Philippine government after an appearance in an episode of the Late Show with David Letterman, where he joked about availing a "Filipino or Russian mail-order bride". Philippine senator and actor Ramon Revilla Jr. said his (Baldwin's) wife would be "unlucky" and that "there will be trouble" if Alec Baldwin were to travel to the country. The Bureau of Immigration has placed Baldwin in its blacklist, baring him from visiting the country.

Seems like a distinctive story and worthy of mention.


Drsruli (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

When I Google Alec Baldwin, the previewed text in the search result for the Wikipedia page is different than the actual text of the article. It lists his occupations/titles, but it includes "killer" at the end of this list. Remove "killer" from this text. 108.32.48.37 (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed Wyliepedia @ 05:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I was reading through this talk page and this section made me remember something of concern I’ve been meaning to ask about. Sometimes it isn’t just Google, but services like Apple’s “lookup” feature (that brings up the first paragraph of wikipedia articles) that do not reflect the current article. For example, already reverted vandalized text from a politicians page could appear in an article preview. Could that be a concern here as well? Goddale120 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021 (2)

Remove murderer. It was an accidental shooting, certainly not a murder intended by Alec Baldwin. 100.6.6.100 (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed Wyliepedia @ 05:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not been ruled accidental, negligent, nor intentional, so while you identified something that needs to change, you're also stating something that is unconfirmed. Rule #1 of gun safety is to treat every gun like it is loaded. We learned in the Floyd case that there are many shades of homicide/murder. It hasn't been ruled an "act of god" accident with nobody at fault, nor has it been ruled murder. If you think the label "murderer" is beyond the pale for what appears to be a tragedy, I regret to inform you that this could very well approach that, given the criteria for "third degree murder" (thanks, Floyd trial, for teaching us all these esoteric legal criteria for horrible things none of us ever want to have to deal with). At this point, it's a homicide, but not murder, and Baldwin hasn't been charged with a crime. 2600:1012:B01F:72D2:FD55:EB74:EDEC:54C6 (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Unless someone can come up with evidence of intent, he wouldn't be charged with anything - however, a "prop" is supposed to be incapable of firing a real round, so somehow something erroneous got on the set. Therein lies the investigation - and what it will turn up. Until that time, editors must merely summarize the facts of what happened. 50.111.2.158 (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Prop guns are real guns, the ammo is supposed to be the differentiator. Guns are very simple machines. If you wanted to design a prop gun based on a visual description or picture alone, and then someone asked you to "make this able to make a loud noise when you pull the trigger, where momentarily, fire/light shoots from the end", you may very well unintentionally reverse-engineer a tool that can kill someone, even if used correctly (with "blanks"). All of this is speculation, and speculation is not really what talk pages are for (I'm doing it here, but hopefully to illustrate why we must remain extremely conservative about including unverified speculation on here). The facts will emerge eventually. Note, I am not a gun expert and have never fired a real gun (beyond airsoft, pellet or paintball) in my life, but I am friends with gun enthusiasts (enthusiastic enough to get concealed carry permits in California) who can't even jokingly bring themselves to violate safety norms (like pointing it at someone you don't intend to kill, even if the chamber is inspected a hundred times for a bullet, because it could lead to a change in behavior, when it actually does matter), so I'm relying on what I've heard from others and the Prop Master in the CNN interview; I feel no imposter syndrome because the rules of gun safety are just that simple, sadly. 2600:1012:B01F:72D2:FD55:EB74:EDEC:54C6 (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly not true that intention necessarily has to be established to charge someone with a crime. There is such a thing as criminal neglegence. Whether anyone will eventually be charged with criminal negligence in this case is yet to be seen, but it's difficult for me imagine that no one at any level was negligent here (unless, of course, someone acted intentionally for some reason). TheScotch (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Prop Union

The union sent a letter stating that the movie's propmaster is NOT a member of the union, and questions why a real gun/live rounds was on the set instead of a true prop. Interested editors should note! 50.111.2.158 (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The union simultaneously claimed none of their members were there and that a "live round" was used. I'd be skeptical of using their claim here. FYI: unions aren't ever neutral or reliable sources to the point where we can include their claim here without attribution. And even if we did attribute it, given the "loaded" (sheesh, our language really uses a lot of gun lingo) nature of such an unverified claim, it's best left out. 2600:1012:B01F:72D2:FD55:EB74:EDEC:54C6 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes. The letter was one sent to the members of the union, although the press relayed the news necessarily. Also the victim herself is one member of the union ( their claim relates to prop masters local otherwise, of course ). --Askedonty (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikjipedia attributes the action to the gun, but all three sources attribute the action to Baldwin. This distinction is extremely important.

This is the most recent version of the wikipedia article, as of when I started to make this comment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alec_Baldwin&oldid=1051214036

The wikipedia article states:

"a prop firearm he was holding discharged"

But that's not what the three sources say.

This is what the three sources say:

"Alec Baldwin discharged prop gun"

"Alec Baldwin Fired Prop Gun"

"Alec Baldwin Misfires a Prop Gun"

So while the wikipedia article attributes the action to the gun, all three sources attribute the action to Baldwin.

This distinction is extremely important.

Baxter329 (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Just in this special case, people don't kill people, guns kill people, ok? But seriously, I'd like to echo your concern about the language used here. We must avoid suggesting blame rests with either Baldwin or the gun; at this point, we must dispassionately cover what happened based on what the sources describe. If they say he fired it, then it's fair to say that here. If we are saying "a prop firearm he was holding discharged", it could mean that someone else pulled the trigger? That it spontaneously exploded? That's encyclopedic malpractice. 2600:1012:B01F:72D2:FD55:EB74:EDEC:54C6 (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Deadline has the sheriff's statement as the victims were "shot when a prop firearm was discharged by Alec Baldwin" and that Baldwin was "unaware of the type of ammunition in the gun". He was questioned and released, implying that they found no malicious intent on his behalf. He was seen and photographed crying after questioning. There are more citations on the cinematographer's page than here. I have just spent 30 minutes nesting them all together. Should anyone wish to tweak this ongoing event any better, feel free. Wyliepedia @ 07:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The statement that Baldwin was "unaware of the type of ammunition in the gun" is ambiguous. If Baldwin is being quoted, the actor could have meant that he didn't know much about types of ammunition or, alternatively, that he didn't know that a specific type was in the firearm. I guess it remains to be seen whether it was a blank, if so what type of blank, or if the round or rounds contained bullets (thus not blanks). If it wasn't blanks, it appears to be criminal on someone's part, not necessarily that of Baldwin. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - as a general rule, passive voice should be avoided. You've also correctly identified that the sources don't state or imply that the gun just randomly did that. It sounds like a terrible error but it's not like the gun just did that on its own. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Style/semantic question on "accident"

This could come across as bad faith, but please believe me that it isn't. Does Wikipedia have guidelines on use of the word "accident" and "accidental" in situations like this? Article currently says Baldwin "accidentally" killed the crew member (unless it has changed since I started typing this). I fully believe that to be the case, however I know, for example, the news industry/AP style typically avoids calling car crashes "accidents" because it assumes details about a person's thoughts and intentions that simply cannot be known — certainly not without a legal determination. Obviously, the point here is not to accuse Baldwin of anything. Again, I cannot say this clearly enough: I think it's obvious this was an accident. But, is Wikipedia able to make that determination? Is it more neutral not to use that word? I grant that Wikipedia isn't news or AP style though, so if "accident" is in keeping with Wikipedia policies, then OK. Wemedgefrodis (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Until a full investigation can be done and reliably sourced, I don't see an issue, hence the {{current}} template. It's reminiscent of Brandon Lee's death, which was satisfactorily expanded and ruled accidental. Wyliepedia @ 05:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
But I'd argue "ruled accidental" is the key point here. That may have been the case with Brandon Lee, but is not yet the case with Baldwin. Nothing has been ruled yet, and an investigation has barely even had time to begin. WP:DUST under "First impressions count, but aren't always correct" may be relevant (although it's an essay, not a policy). I guess another thing to consider is this: Wikipedia can only follow what the consensus of sources on a subject say, right? Knowing how news typically operates, I'm pretty sure there are no sources out there currently using the word "accident" to describe this. If none of our sources are using it, I'm not sure if we can defend it. Just something to consider. Wemedgefrodis (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I changed it to match the first source: "discharged, causing the death of..." and added the investigation is ongoing. Wyliepedia @ 05:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thank you for hearing me out. Wemedgefrodis (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Third degree murder can be accidental. So even if it's "ruled accidental", he could be charged and convicted of murder. If sources are saying he caused her death, calling it "homicide" here is fair game. "Murder" is premature, or inappropriate, depending on what the outcome of investigations will be. TL;DR, avoid allocating blame with words like "negligent", "accident", "murder", and just describe the actions of homicide. 2600:1012:B01F:72D2:FD55:EB74:EDEC:54C6 (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The terms "negligence, accident, murder, or homicide" are fine on a page detailing those crimes wherein someone died, not on a neutral, encyclopedic, breaking news biography page, MOS:BLP. Wyliepedia @ 07:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
He won't be charged with anything unless he had something to do with it. Actors are not in charge of props. Why a "prop" turned out to be a real gun with real bullets is the real question at this point.
I would say the section header should be "incident" as "accident" is a value judgment and non-NPOV, unless reliable sources can be cited to support. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Re: "Actors are not in charge of props." Baldwin was not functioning merely as an actor for the making of this film. He was also the film's producer. Futhermore, we don't know whether Baldwin was merely following instructions from the script and director when he fired the shot (or shots)." TheScotch (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Prop guns are real guns with blanks (gunpowder but no slug) or dummy rounds (slug with no gunpowder, when scenes involving loading are needed) per a CNN interview with a prop master. In addition, pointing a gun at someone on set is to be avoided (remote filming is preferred if aiming at the camera, for example), as is shooting around someone who is less than 20 feet away. It's hard to imagine why non actors were shot by Baldwin and this being an accident with Baldwin at 0% fault, given these regulations. I'm not claiming it is one thing or another, but it is definitely possible Baldwin was negligent, yes, criminally, in this case. Accidents can be at-fault or not-at-fault, but it's still premature to use the language of "accident". It's extremely contentious since Baldwin is a vocal gun control advocate, and based on what is known, it appears entirely possible that he violated something that he could have learned in an NRA "gun safety 101" course.
At this point, it's a tragedy, where he fired the shot that killed and injured others. The "live round" claim comes from a union who also claim that none of their members were on the set. So whoever is saying on this thread that a bullet was involved is relying on questionable sourcing, even if it appears in a major media outlet. I suppose I will use the idiom "jump the gun" here... all claims must be thoroughly vetted, lest they be premature. 2600:1012:B01F:72D2:FD55:EB74:EDEC:54C6 (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


The current version of the article states:

On October 21, 2021, Baldwin was filming on the set of the upcoming film Rust at the Bonanza Creek Ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico, when he discharged a prop firearm, *killing* cinematographer Halyna Hutchins ... Immediately after the incident, Hutchins was transported to the University of New Mexico Hospital in Albuquerque via helicopter; ... Hutchins later died from her injuries at the hospital.

The word "killing" suggests that Hutchens died on the spot, not later at the hospital. Would "fatally wounding" or even "injuring" be more correct usage? Jmncnj07 (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is ambiguous. Not sure which term is better, though I'm veering towards "fatally wounding" ("injuring" is probably too mild) —AFreshStart (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Negligent discharge of a prop gun resulting in involuntary manslaughter

This needs to be included in the bio article on Baldwin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5C3E:23A3:E1B0:52B:3E60:ED98 (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Source? Wyliepedia @ 05:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
See the definition of manslaughter to see why this is not correct. Manslaughter, like murder, is a legal concept, and there is currently no finding that anyone is legally culpable. General Ization Talk 03:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

Remove comments regarding a union propmaster being present on set during the shooting, there was a weapon master which is the responsible party for all firearms on a set. To include unrelated union disputes on this page only implies that if a union member was on set things might have been different which is not currently backed by any facts or investigations. 108.56.246.190 (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

An edit request needs to be a lot more specific than that. It should be change A to B or something like that. bop34 • talk • contribs 12:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2021

UNDER THE HEADING "FILM" ADD THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE AS THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE LAST FULL PARAGRAPH, AS FOLLOWS: "He gained further recognition as a leading man with his role as Jack Ryan in The Hunt for Red October (1990)." BEGIN EDIT <<< That same year, he also starred in the black comedy crime film "Miami Blues" (1990) alongside Jennifer Jason Leigh and Fred Ward. >>> END EDIT 72.188.153.50 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done with added citations. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2021

The recent shooting incident involving Alec Baldwin is described in this article as “accidental”. It should be edited to NEGLIGENT. 50.38.107.134 (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Add to Category:Manslaughter in the United States

-— Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMBLAman (talk • contribs) 23:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done —AFreshStart (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@AFreshStart: And correctly reverted, as highly premature. Manslaughter is a legal concept describing the culpability of a person in the death of another to a lesser degree than murder. However, at this time, there has been no determination, nor even any theory presented, of any legal culpability on the part of Baldwin concerning his role in the shooting death associated with Rust. It would obviously be wrong to describe this as a murder, but unless and until the legal system is brought into play concerning this matter, it is just as wrong to describe it as manslaughter. At this time, it can only be described as a death, presumed to be accidental. General Ization Talk 02:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
(And even if there is eventually a finding of negligence contributing to the death (most likely on the part of a weapons handler, propmaster or other production staff rather than Baldwin), that will probably be be a civil matter, not a criminal one, so not manslaughter.) General Ization Talk 02:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed its a little too soon to add that tag to him, seems to be breaching WP:RECENTISM, let the facts play out and report what the WP:RS says. EliteArcher88 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Alec Baldwin is related to Millard Fillmore

There is a lot of speculation about whether Alec Baldwin is related to Millard Fillmore, because of their facial resemblance. They are in fact distantly related. Millard Fillmore is a descendant of John Lawrence (bef. 1561 - Jan 1607 South Elmham, Suffolk, England) and Elizabeth Herne (abt. 1560 - 1616 Tibenham, Norfolk, England), as is Alec Baldwin. Source: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Mason-Family-Tree-128 and https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Shore-Family-Tree-156 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lachlanwilliams2022 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Should the current incident be mentioned in the lead?

I know this might be recentist, but I think this content should be included in the lead – a sentence at least. —AFreshStart (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Definitely recentism. Ledes should summarize the article and considering what to include need not be contentious. I really don't think highly of Baldwin, so I'd have every incentive to want to highlight this in the lede, but I also hate when editors deviate from what the lede is meant to do. Now, if you want to group this into his hot-headedness (there are a ton of incidents, not even listed here), if he is ever found culpable, maybe we could have a sentence about his problematic personal behavior. But it's farrrr too early for that. 2600:1012:B01F:72D2:FD55:EB74:EDEC:54C6 (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Leads highlight a person's life and career and not mention everything in the article below. If the film shooting is mentioned, then the photographer assault needs mentioned. It's undue weight. Wyliepedia @ 05:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it's not yet clear how this incident will be weighed in importance by reliable sources relative to the rest of Baldwin's life. If that becomes clear, and it probably won't for at least a few months, and the importance is high enough, then it can safely be added to the lead at that time. Jmill1806 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "lead" should be spelled "lead".TheScotch (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No, not in the lead. Per WP:RECENTISM, this is all too soon and could turn into Tabloid style coverage which sensationalizes a tragedy (WP should not be "reporting" and constantly "updating"). The fact that the linked article 2021 Rust shooting incident is AFD should guide how the content is introduced for this article. Readers should be directed to media / news outlets, not an encyclopedia. Maineartists (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
He is definitely far more read by people for this incident than anything he has written as a Huffington Post contributor, so I'd say it's significant enough, being a nationally publicized controversy. Bill Williams 22:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This many, so I concur that is warranted. --Chlorineer (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Bill Williams: The point is that what happens to be in the news now is not necessarily going to be in the news a year from now or so. That's what we mean by "recentism" (linguistically disgusting as the neologism obviously is).TheScotch (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes it definitely is WP:RECENTISM, we should let all the facts come out about the incident before we add something to the article. Remember this is an Encyclopedia WP:NOTGOSSIP and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Also we must respect WP:BLP, any wrongful accounts could mislead readers coming to Wikipedia for facts. EliteArcher88 (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
He literally killed someone, no matter how little coverage there would be on such a killing, it is still significant for the man's article, and there isn't little coverage, as Chlorineer pointed out the page views of this page multiplied by 20. Bill Williams 00:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
And yes, that was a recent thing and they will decrease, but it shows there was a significant amount of news on the subject when it occurred, and in fact I just got notifications from multiple news sources on it while I am writing this, so you cannot claim it is just "recentism" when he ended a persons' life and clearly is having difficulties with his own as a result. Bill Williams 00:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Bill Williams: You appear to be conflating or entangling your two arguments: On the one hand you are maintaining that the incident should be referred to in the lead merely because it's getting news coverage now. On the other hand, you are maintaining it should be referred to because "Baldwin ended a life". These are separate arguments and must logically be proposed separately and considered separately. The first is easily dismissed because it is, as has been repeatedly pointed out, pure "recentism". Even if you don't accept this dismissal, you need to stop rehearsing that argument. We've already heard it loud and clear. The problem with the second is that we currently have little information and little perspective with which to evaluate the significance of the incident and whether Baldwin is to any degree culpable. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, there is no urgency. TheScotch (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I get what you mean, there's no need to add it to the lead immediately. But after a few weeks when more information has surfaced, and the media attention inevitably continues, it should certainly be put there considering it is the main reason people are visiting this page, and most people aren't going to scroll way down, especially on mobile.. Bill Williams 22:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
That makes no sense and it’s not how an encyclopaedia works. This is not a news source. Mvbaron (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's about time to put something into the part of the lead below the picture etc. It's December now and the fact that Alec Baldwin shot and killed someone deserves more than a small paragraph, far into the article. Netanyahuserious (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Netanyahuserious' comment - this is a significant event in itself, and probably career-ending for Baldwin (to say nothing of the impact on Hutchins et al). It seems bizarre to have no mention of it up front; it's hard to find even within the body of the article. 150.143.163.87 (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Involuntary Manslaughter criminal case

There should be an update on wether there is a criminal case against Baldwin or anyone else involved. 74.58.131.92 (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Awards in lead

In light of recent edits to omit awards of Baldwin in lead, I'm just going to pick 3 actors off the top of my head without checking their article leads: James Earl Jones, Tina Fey and Joel Gray. Completely different actors in their field. I'm betting these articles list awards received as content for their lead sections: listing awards. That's what makes a personal notable for inclusion at WP. This is standard content for actor leads. The awards for Baldwin should remain in lead section. As well, it is never stated in the article or any source that Baldwin gained fame for his appearance on Knots Landing. Maineartists (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Children

Ilaria Catalina Irena was born 9/23/2022, his 8th child including Ireland. OneNitpicker (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

NM DA

New Mexico First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies Mprieto07 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

"discharged a revolver

shouldn't this just read "shot a gun"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:DDA4:26DD:4CC2:1219 (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of reputable media covering the ongoing trial have used the term 'fired' in reference to the gun. The district attorned adjacently used the phrase 'fire a projectile', as documented by CNN in the link provided. ~~~~ DovC123 (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Alec Baldwin comedian and political activist (removal)

Based on the introductory and the fact that the lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight, do you support, oppose, or oppose partially the removal of political activist and/or comedian from the lede and occupation infobox of this article?

As I've concluded after previous discussions pertaining to what makes a subject a notable comedian, many editors agree that:

  • Appearing in comedy films and being a comedian is not the same thing
  • The usual criteria for being a comedian includes at minimum a period of having done stand-up, or as a stretch, regularly appearing cast members of any sketch comedy show.

He simply isn't notable for being a political activist, I don't think any further argument needs to be made regarding this.

Vote below and specify if required. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Partially Oppose. Political activist should be removed, but comedian should remain.
Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 17:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • My vote does not include the term support or oppose because I don't know what they mean in this Rfc. Partially oppose (keep comedian) The word comedian should be kept in the lead and the infobox, and the word political activist should not be there. An unbiased search shows the word comedian showing up repeatedly, but not the term political activist, so it's clear that reliable sources commonly describe his occupation as including comedian. Mathglot (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Mathglot I goofed up the wording and only just realized it, but support would be removing both comedian and political activist, oppose would mean leaving them both in, and partially oppose would suggest keeping one of the two (specify). ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    Understood, thanks. I have adjusted my !vote above accordingly. Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Partially Oppose. Political activist should be removed. If Vince Vaughn, John C. Reilly and Woody Allen are comedians then comedian should remain for Alec Baldwin. Nemov (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Nemov Woody Allen has done stand-up. Vince Vaughn and John C. Reilly shouldn't be labeled comedians either on lack of RS alone. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support – Political activist should not be in the lead, since there is little weight in the article for this label and by assumption in reliable sources. This is according to the MOS:LEADREL guideline which states that
"according to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources."
Comedian is a bit more complicated of a decision. Like ChicagoWikiEditor, I feel that a comedian is someone who does stand-up comedy work or does mostly comedy films and shows. Alec Baldwin is more of a diverse entertainer. He should not be pigeonholed with the comedian label in the lead sentence, but rather the nuance of his work should be explained as is done in the second sentence:
"The oldest of the Baldwin brothers, he is known for his versatile performances, from comic work on television to dramatic roles in film."
--Guest2625 (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps for rhythm and balance of the two lead sentences. A second label word could be "entertainer". Then the lead would begin as:
Alexander Rae Baldwin III (born April 3, 1958) is an American actor and entertainer.[1][2][3] The oldest of the Baldwin brothers, he is known for his versatile performances, from comic work on television to dramatic roles in film.
In this case "entertainer" would represent comic work and actor would represent dramatic work. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I think this is a concise and accurate solution. Sergeant Curious (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
An improvement over comedian to be sure @Mathglot: @Orson12345: thoughts on this take? ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree, entertainer would be more appropriate.
Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 19:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Mild support for removal (invited by the bot) He really doesn't fall within the common meaning of "comedian" or "political activist", but he's sort of an edge case on both of those. Since he is very and very visibly political there should be some summary of that aspect in the lead. Which would do a better job that attempting a 2 word nounification of his as a "political activist" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal - per WP:LEAD. He is famous for being an actor, and the bulk of the article on his work is that. His other works as producer, comic, and activist is of too little WP:WEIGHT for the lead. Much of his acting is in comedies, but that’s not the same thing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support "actor and entertainer". He does enough non-acting and hosting that it makes sense to include that. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal - per WP:LEAD. He is famous for being an actor, and the bulk of the article on his work is that … Much of his acting is in comedies, but that’s not the same thing per Markbassett. I think "entertainer" is vague to the point of being at best valueless and is potentially misleading. This description is more commonly used of a Sammy Davis Jr / Bruce Forsyth type figure, who sings a bit, tells jokes occasionally and dances a bit and who is known as an all-rounder. Baldwin seems to be partly known for his comedic 'skits' and parodies which are forms of comic roles. Pincrete (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

(edit conflict) User:ChicagoWikiEditor, can you clarify your Rfc question, and/or what support and oppose mean? You voted oppose, and your Rfc question was about "removal". So you have voted to "oppose removal", i.e, "to keep it in the lead". But you claimed earlier that he "isn't notable for being a political activist". So, which is it? Do you want the lead to say he is a political activist, or not? If no one has voted by the time you see this, I suggest you recast the Rfc question as a positive, instead of a negative, as if I understand correctly, it sounds like the current wording may have tripped you up, and may trip up others as well. Mathglot (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Too late; I got an edit conflict because someone else already responded. Not sure what happens now, but I don't see how a closer will be able to evaluate this given its current status. If I were you, I'd withdraw the Rfc (see WP:RFCEND) and start another one right after this one. But it's up to you. Mathglot (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mathglot I did a brain fart, updated. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I’ve changed my vote to “partially opposed”, now that ChicagoWikiEditor has clarified the voting options. Thanks.
Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 18:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I still don't understand. Let me reword how I understand your oppose vote: you want "political activist" to be kept in the article, right? Because you oppose it's removal? Am I reading you right?
Oh, wait: now I see that in this edit you changed your vote from oppose to support. So I guess it needs more clarity because it tripped you up, so why wouldn't it trip up someone else as well? Let's hope no one else gets confused in the same way, but I pity the closer. Mathglot (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Post-ec: yes, that's what I thought from the beginning. Your vote is clear, now; let's hope the question and responses are clear to everyone. Mathglot (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Housekeeping note regarding conversational integrity: my comment above of 18:30, 24 Sep, which may now appear cryptic, was in reply to this comment, later removed without redaction. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Note to closer: there is one unredacted !vote alteration in the voting section, but as of the timestamp following this comment, no loss of conversational intergrity, so you should be good to go now. Mathglot (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Bad RfC. The question should have been posed neutrally with the nominators view separate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
You are correct. This is one of the most poorly implemented and confusing RfCs I've ever seen, unless its purpose was to confuse participants. In any case, I've restored "comedian" to the infobox as Baldwin is not only a comedian, but a highly accomplished one, particularly through his TV work, which has earned him over a dozen major awards (Emmy, Golden Globe, SAG) for his comedy work. As I said in my edit summary, see List of comedians. If anyone is crazy enough to think that Baldwin should be removed from that list, then they'll also have to remove many, many of the others. And a riot will ensue if that happens. Also, see Comedian of course. The editor who removed it from the infobox said he did it because "He has never done stand up therefore he is not a comedian", which is the huge, classic misunderstanding of the term comedian. One does not need to be a stand-up, or have ever done stand-up, to be notable as a comedian. Baldwin is obviously a highly notable comedian. Stoarm (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Your entire rationale is that he is a comedian because you say he is and because another part of Wikipedia says he is, neither of which are sufficient justification for the label here. 2600:1012:B067:46F:6DBA:4741:DFDB:6845 (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Anyone with decent reading comprehension skills can clearly see that was not my "entire rationale." Actually, the entertainment industry, his numerous comedy awards, the article's refs, and of course the definition of comedian say he is. See the thread below that you started for any further input. Stoarm (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

(RfC) Should Alec Baldwin be described as a comedian in the first sentence?

I am opening an RfC on this issue because (per my assessment) there is little to no sourcing that justifies calling him a comedian in the lede of this article. Some commenters have noted that while he has played "comic roles", he has not done standup comedy; others have claimed that those roles (30 Rock, SNL Trump) suffice. Please share your views on this topic below. 2600:1012:B067:46F:6DBA:4741:DFDB:6845 (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't go straight for a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC without discussing first and exhausting other options. Also, did you not see the big red error message? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Baldwin most definitely qualifies as a comedian. He has earned over a dozen major awards for his comedy work. Many editors have a huge misunderstanding of what constitutes being a comedian, falsely believing it only applies to those who perform stand-up. The fact is that most comedians are not stand-ups, which is merely a type or subset of the genre of comedy. See comedian and List of comedians. Stoarm (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@2600:1012:B067:46F:6DBA:4741:DFDB:6845: Have you ever edited this article or participated on this talk page under a different IP address or as a registered user? If yes, are you currently blocked from editing? Stoarm (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
No. In response to prior editors, that may be correct, but where's the sourcing? If it's not controversial, it should be easy to find satisfactory sources. 2600:1012:B002:B7C8:CD10:4EC9:57EF:1E01 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
A comedian and a stand-up comedian (comic) are two completely separate definitions of profession: "A comic says funny things; a comedian says things funny." Baldwin is not a stand-up comedian. Thus, he is not described as one in the lead. He is, however, a Film Comedian [2] and Television Comedian [3]. Baldwin's co-star Tina Fey never performed stand-up and is not known for doing such, but is called a "comedian". Baldwin is a comedian. Is this really being discussed? Maineartists (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, but why does everyone keep providing everything but a proper source? Links to other parts of Wikipedia and rationale/thought processes are appreciated, but not sources! I agree he is not a standup comedian, but I still think "comedian" is a poor descriptor. It's like calling a teacher a "consultant". It's technically correct, but not really ideal 2600:1012:B02C:DD8D:5544:63DC:B0A3:CEE (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
No, it's like calling a teacher a teacher. Just as the teaching profession has different types of teachers, the comedy profession has different types of comedians. Stand-up is merely one slice of the comedy pie. Do you seriously not understand this? Because it's starting to appear that no matter what anyone tells or shows you, you may never accept the fact that the term "comedian" is not limited only to those who perform stand-up. But it's not clear if you're truly misunderstanding what we're telling you or if you're intentionally being intransigent. Hopefully, it's the former. Perhaps you should look up the definition of comedian in any reputable dictionary. Baldwin is without question, among other titles, a comedian based on his comedic acting roles, which have earned him many major, individual awards and nominations in the comedy category, including Emmys, Golden Globes, and SAGs. Apparently, you think the entertainment industry is mistaken. Finally, the article is well sourced; the article includes plenty of refs that verify Baldwin's status as a comedian. Read them. We're not going to do the work for you. For the record, no reasonable editor is claiming that Baldwin is not a comedian, unless they are under the flawed belief that stand-up is the only type of comedy. The only legitimate debate has been whether or not Baldwin is notable as a comedian. Clearly, all the major comedy awards and the length of time he's been doing it should settle that dispute. Finally, I have to agree with Maineartists' sentiment: Is this really being discussed? Stoarm (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, because the ideal source (diverse, high quality recent sources, that explicitly call Baldwin a comedian) don't seem to exist. All of his "comic acting" work is included by calling him an "actor" or "entertainer". 2600:1012:B01A:BFF4:34EC:10FB:EBC:AD26 (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Reading is your friend. Stoarm (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I assume that your saying "No" above means that you're not under a current block and haven't edited as someone else? You're an IP hopper, so it makes it difficult for editors to easily see your contributions history. Stoarm (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Correct. They're all LA verizon wireless IP addresses. 2600:1012:B065:4A16:F020:97E8:CAD7:83E8 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually, they're assigned specifically to Anaheim. A link to geolocation data for IP users is provided to all editors. You have a lengthy trail. Stoarm (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee: Alec Baldwin, Season 1 Episode 4 Maineartists (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Well played, Maineartists. And, as it says, it was his second time on Comedians. Stoarm (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
So if Barack Obama went on that show a second time, he would be considered a "comedian"? I actually think he could be a standup if he wanted to; his deadpan is pretty good. But obviously this is another example of the poor criteria I'm claiming exist here, to justify the use of the label. 2600:1012:B065:4A16:F020:97E8:CAD7:83E8 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Which is why it was billed by Seinfeld as a non-comedian, "are-you-kidding-me-super-special-guest" episode to break from the concept. But I'm sure you already knew that. In any case, your inability to acknowledge even basic, undisputable points or that Baldwin clearly has the credentials to earn the title "comedian" may unfortunately indicate to some editors that you're here for nothing more than to be a disruptive troll. I hope that's not the case. Stoarm (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I did not know that, but I no longer wish to engage with such a rude editor as yourself. Have a nice day. 2600:1012:B01A:BFF4:34EC:10FB:EBC:AD26 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Charges dropped

The charges against Alec Baldwin are being dropped. Prosecutors to Drop Charges Against Alec Baldwin in ‘Rust’ Shooting - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Alec Baldwin: Prosecutors plan to dismiss charges against actor in 'Rust' shooting, Baldwin's attorney tells CNN | CNN

The article shoud be edited to recognize that he now no longer faces criminal charges. 2607:FEA8:7228:7D00:74CA:2837:85EA:2C6D (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

While I didn't edit anything in other parts of the article, a few minutes ago I did add the fact the charges were dropped in the article and mentioned it in lead. Special:Diff/1150935388. WikiVirusC(talk) 22:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Number of children

just wanted to let you know he actually has 8 children including Ireland. Thanks! 2600:8801:FB14:5200:7E5E:91B7:7BA2:4502 (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alec_Baldwin/Archive_2&oldid=1218580445"