![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
in one part of the page it says he was born in new york. but in the bio it says he was born in france?? 72.223.81.74 19:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
whoa. a single film listed in the filmography? a SINGLE movie? even the picture of his face is from a movie that ISN'T the single movie listed!
ouch. i'll add in Glengarry Glenn Rose and some other things, but I can't put dates. so it's gonna be cheap, but oh well.
well, i just noticed there's a PARAGRAPHICAL filmography. heh. not very complete though. i can't do much better.
Added a picture.
^pirate
17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
[ A link he spammed this page with ] is meant to give the visitor a wide angle view of how Alec Baldwin handles his relationships in essence and in practice. It also allows the visitor to examine the characteristics of his own relationships with Alec Baldwin.
Both content and test are based on sound astrological knowledge and research which gained vast popularity among web surfers.
I believe that even though Astrology is not considered a mainstream science, these knowledge and compatibility tool should be made available to whomever wishes to study Alec Baldwin as broadly as possible.
I have no desire to be considered a spammer and I don't want to force [ a link he spammed this page with ] on the founders of Alec Baldwin's article.
I ask you, authors of Alec Baldwin that if you have an objection to placing a link to [ a link he successfully added to the johnny depp article in the External Links section, please write it here. Else, I’ll place the link hoping that it would be a valid resource for Alec Baldwin's fans and researchers.
With appreciation, Midas touch 08:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's Alec having a little heart-to-heart with his daughter. Kim 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I found conflicting information on the extent of Alec Baldwin's vegetarianism (he's currently listed as a vegetarian). According to this webpage, he's only a semi-vegetarian. Aragorn2 18:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Although Alec Baldwin has frequently identified his paternal line as Irish, this ethnic identification appears to be more sociological than genealogical. According to several online family trees, the Baldwins of Brooklyn are of old New England Yankee stock, descendants of John Baldwin an Englishman who settled in Connecticut in the 17th century. Alec's paternal grandmother was Ruth Noble of Edwards, St. Lawrence County, NY. According to several online histories of Edwards, the Nobles were Scottish immigrants who settled in Edwards in the early 19th century. Alec's great grandmother (his father's father's mother), although born in England, did have the very Irish name of Helen Irene McNamara, so he does apparently have some Irish blood on his father's side. Bebill 06:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
There was a discovery channel documentary he was in? What was it? And can someone include it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.205.70.254 ( talk • contribs) 21:19 9 July 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge the only team in Sydney Australia named the Rabbitohs is a National Rugby League (NRL) team which is an Australian adpatation of Rugby. Wikipedia itself has an article on the Rabbitohs - conicidentally Russel Crowe owns the team. Tius 09:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Threatening, expletive-strewn phone message to 11-year old daughter linked here: http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_audio/0419_baldwin.mp3
This "controversy" is the stupidest thing I have ever witnessed on television. Were the Anna Nicole reporters hungry for a new story? This is a private matter between a father and his daughter, and the only reason that it is notable is because the mother violated a court order and released the information. SHE VIOLATED A DIRECT COURT ORDER!!! For Wikipedia to post this information for the public to see is irresponsible, just as it is irresponsible for every television show that describes it. If a family court judge has decided that it is in the best interest of the child to not have these matters discussed in public, I don't know why Wikipedia doesn't honor that important determination.
Bluefield
14:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Bluefield wrote: "If a family court judge has decided that it is in the best interest of the child to not have these matters discussed in public, I don't know why Wikipedia doesn't honor that important determination." I agree wholeheartedly. -- Kslain 19:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed the page as I feel the incident with his daughter didn't need to be an entirely different subject as it relates to Kim Basinger. Amme88 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It isn't "blatant abuse, dude". I worked as a child protective specialist for 4 years, and this wouldn't even warrant a report of inadequate guardianship. Look up a legal definition for abuse or event neglect before you start to throw those words around. The article could reference the audio tape, but there is no need to document the contents of the message. Bluefield 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah CPS is pretty useless. Any organization that helps to prevent fathers from raping their daughters and mothers from beating their babies to death is always bad in my book. I'm with you Mr. Christopher....if they aren't big enough to defend themselves, well then they deserve to get beat up right? Idiot.
Bluefield
12:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to stop deleting the "little pig" references because it is obvious that some editors here don't care about the court order or the damage that the references to this voice mail will do to the kid. Part of the solution or part of the problem. Bluefield 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That what the name of God would be the purpose of the gag order if it didn't apply to members of the media? Don't talk about your custody battle to the local butcher or the guy at the gas station? Of course she heard the message already on her phone, it is the repetition of this message that will damage her in society. Wikipedia is a part of the damage, not the sole cause or even a primary cause by any stretch of the imagination, but the message alone wouldn't have caused even a 1/10th of the damage that the rapid reporting of this story has done. And how did the story get out to allow for all of this reporting? By the violation of a court ordered gag order. So the court order didn't have to mention Wikipedia or every single publication by name, the parents were told to not discuss it with ANYBODY, especially reporters, and the mother decided to ignore that to curry public favor. Bluefield 20:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This cannot be reported on wikipedia. It is BREAKING the law. This is a private matter and only people with no life actually would report it. Alec Baldwin is a free American and is free to treat a child however he wants to. My parent's have yelled at me far worse. IT is the same thing as me starting an article on parent "x" who lives in a quite suburb who has done nothing notible, one day parent "x" gets in a fight with their child and the child goes onto wikipedia and starts an article about it. It is the same thing. What makes Alec Baldwin more special when he gets in a fight with a child it is reported on wikipedia but when Shmitty McGee gets in a fight with his child, there is no article. This section must be deleted. ALSO, i see that some users have posted comments citing some of the specific things he said like "little pig" and other things, saying that this is verbal abuse. How the hell is it your issue to start commenting on what your oppinion of verbal abbuse is? It is called common sense and not some hippy "politically correct" nonsense. It is up to the government to decide that. Leave the poor guy alone and get a life. -- Toccsevobal 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Well then, I will create a page about some person i knew who got in a fight with their child. I am a exceptible reference. Who knows, the media could all be lying. And also, it is breaking the law. There is a court order against his x-wife reporting something like this to the media. It is blaitant disrespect and Alec Baldwin should have no problem saying that he does not feel sorry. -- Toccsevobal 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I included the entire transcript of what he said on the voicemail and removed the select quotes that were cherrypicked from the tape by some editors here. Providing context for what he said makes more sense than just taking the "highlight" quotes and throwing them up here for a little character assassination. Bluefield 20:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Censorship on Wiki? What happened to the factual post of AB being asshole liberal of the year?
Alec Baldwin's picture should be changed, it is hard to recognize him with all that beard goin on. I though the still of him from 30 Rock was perfect in that it was a perfectly recognizable image from him and it was an image of him from a current TV show in which he stars. The picture should at least be changed to him without the facial hair. -- Orangefizzlebiz 03:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ye gods, that picture is frightening! -- Howdybob 14:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
What? No mention of Alec Baldwin's much photographed and discussed furry chest?! When he was a younger, studly dude, Baldwin was constantly put in scenes in which he wore no shirt (example: "Miami Blues"). It appears much of his fame can be attributed not only to his good looks, but his exceptionally hairy chest. Not mentioning this is like not mentioning Dolly Parton's notable bosoms. Buddmar 05:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)buddmar
In 2002, conservative internet blogger Matt Drudge threatened to sue Baldwin for his appearance on the Howard Stern show, during which Baldwin claimed that Drudge was gay and had tried to hit on him in the hallway at ABC studios in Los Angeles when he was doing the Gloria Allred show. [1] No other action was taken by Drudge.
I moved this text here since I have searched the archives and can't find any article with Baldwin or Drudge on 8/06/2002. I think it would be better to track it down and make sure it exists before posting. IMDB on it's own shouldn't be used since they don't guarantee the information on their pages is accurate. -- PTR 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me have your attention for a moment! Let's talk about something important! This article is appalling. No structure, full of bullsh*t, lacking all sorts of notable facts that should be there. Whoever wrote this article - you call yourself a Wikipedia editor, you son of a bitch? You people can't write a biography of a world famous actor, you can't write sh*t, you ARE sh*t, hit the bricks boys and beat it 'cause you are going out!!! You can't play in a man's game. You can't write a decent Wiki article. Because only one thing counts in this life! Get your article to GA status! You hear me, you f*cking f*ggots?! You know what it takes to be a Wikipedia editor? It takes brass balls to be a Wikipedia editor. Why am I here? I came here because Jimbo Wales asked me to, he asked me for a favour. I said, the real favour, follow my advice and fire your f*cking asses because a loser is a loser. Sort this article out boys or hit the bricks! 217.38.66.40 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there are odd gaps in the article. No one says anything about his famous battle with alcoholism, or why his face is bloated and covered in liver spots. Also, the article hardly explains how he rose to stardom nor does it do anything but a weak job of explaining his working relationship with his other famous brothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.42.82 ( talk) 03:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
While the majority of material in most of the sections appears to be fairly accurate and unbiased, the author of the Politics section has driven the tone of the content down to the level of what one would expect to see in a publication such as the National Enquirer. Although the author attempts to couch the material in a semi-journalistic framework, it is clearly gossipy, base and extremely biased against Mr. Baldwin. I have not encountered anything remotely resembling this in any other bio piece I've read on Wikipedia. I am going to edit the section out and will continue to edit it out whenever I see it until some steps are taken by someone in authority at Wikipedia to correct this. This is unwarranted, unprecedented and unprofessional. MiraMcB 11/26/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiraMcB ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The politics section of this article is in dire straights. Very pov and non-encyclopedic. The sourcing is primarily from blogs and that just will not due. I am going to hack and slash this section as per wp:blp and remove all unsourced and contentious material. And Frank, Wp:blp does take precedence over content concerns. Feel free to re-add any material that is npov and has proper sourcing. The Huffington Post and NewsMax will not fly. Turtlescrubber 02:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
On that note who is Bob Elmore and why is it notable that Baldwin has criticized him on his website? 140.140.58.8 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
In an attempt to end the edit war with Inamaka, let me say this;
This event was a very big deal in the media and I think it is well deserving of a space on Wikipedia. We do not have to include a transcript of the tape as the material was "illegally leaked", but the fact that this tape was leaked and the fact that he is suing over it is completely reasonable to include in this article. It's not our place to judge if its fair to Mr. Baldwin or not. We are not advocating breaking court orders or committing libel, we are presenting true information. I think it is very strange that this is no longer in the article and recommend that it is immediately put back in or sent to the noticeboard for a final review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosleybin ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
On Alec Baldwins page it says he and Kim met on the "critically panned The Marrying Man" However on Kim's page it says she and Alec met "when both played romantic lovers in the 1991 success , The Marrying Man." How can The Marrying Man be critically panned and a success at the same time?-- 70.157.42.133 ( talk) 22:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone give this page a proper awards table? -- 68.81.70.65 ( talk) 09:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I put a lot of work into taking out the negative jibes in the article and correcting some errors. This morning 'baldwin' has been changed to 'pig' in the article, I'll change it back. Is there a way to lock this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.125.18 ( talk) 22:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
and gee, I'm looking at the talk page, and there is nothing here on the topic. I'll take the marker out. I do see a dead link [15], so I'll take the associated clause out. Is that the problem? The politics section reads the most well toned as it has ever been right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrisdad ( talk • contribs) 07:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) First of all, comment on the material, not the editor. There is also a policy about no personal attacks, and your comments about checking the articles I have worked for "fundamental errors" certainly looks like one to me. Your interpretation of WP policy is naive at best. You're contradicting yourself over the word firebrand - everyone who knows anything about him knows this is a valid description, then you admit it is a gray area. In fact, using an adjective like that requires a source from a reliable source that says he is a firebrand.
As I have stated ad nauseum, the problem isn't particularly in what you are trying to include, it is more an issue because of the way that you are wording it. Sticking a little "the book says" doesn't fix it. The book says a lot, and at present you are picking and choosing what you are going to use and what you
aren't. You are also choosing how you are presenting it, and from your previous statements, you've made it clear that you see things the way Baldwin does. I've read what you've restored time and again.
Sticking in "the book says" doesn't fix the issues. STOP reverting it and putting in weasel caveats. It needs to be entirely reworded, the unverified claims needs to be removed, and the
unencyclopedic tone needs to come out. You are writing it from a biased perspective, this is a huge issue. I am not confusing anything. However, the paragraphs as you write them do muddy the line.
It goes on and on. And it doesn't matter, each time you revert, you remove what citations were there. It is inappropriate for you for you to disregard mulitple attempts to explain to you why there are issues
when you continue to revert and forge ahead. Just stop at this point until some consensus can be determined. That will involve outside editors. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 10:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) It is against policy to refactor talk page contents in the way you did above. You have broken up my posting and left huge gaps in it. Meanwhile, you simply don't get it. You are not allowed to continue to revert and reinsert over and over again. The way this section is being worded presents a WP:BLP issue. Until that is settled, you are breaking policy by continuing to return the section in the way it is worded. What part of "uncited" do you not understand? This is not a book review. It is an article about Alec Baldwin. There is no place on Wikipedia for a book review. All you can do is briefly discuss the book in a clearly neutral and balanced way. And what citations have you added? "In the book" is not a citation. A citation requires a separate reference entry, and in a case such as this, page numbers. "He writes that she "didn't serve anything that wasn't on the menu"." You keep asserting that this sentence has meaning, but to the new reader, the meaning you contend it has is absolutely unclear. Your interpretation of it won't do. You removed my citation for the voice message, so now it is completely uncited. "In his book Mr. Baldwin admits he makes mistakes, but asks who could be judged for parenthood based on their worst moment taken out of context?" Excuse me, "Mr. Baldwin"? You can't insert a summary of the point of the book that you have drawn in your words. That is original research, your conclusion, unquoted, paraphrased without citation. The video has no credits which the reader can check, it is irrelevant. I am not confused, I know what you are doing. But mostly, you've violated WP:3RR three times over, at each point, I cited WP:BLP and asked that you stop until other editors can be involved to render a consensus over this issue. You've refused to do so, and forged ahead with the same issues of uncited claims and equestionable wording. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 11:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw missing page numbers, I scanned the book and added many. Also added Mark Tabb, he is a co-author you know. 208.54.14.89 ( talk) 16:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC) .. not all the changes took, I'll try again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.89 ( talk) 16:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC) yes it took this time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.89 ( talk) 17:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The section is a little funny. It is supposed to be about what is in a single book but the author has phrased it as though Baldwin is talking directly and it is a collection from different sources. This approach is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.201.166 ( talk) 00:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Grundle2600 -(→Politics and political controversy: For controverisal statements, having the exact quotes is more objective than having a summary.) I agree with your edit summary in general, however I think that in this case, the word-for-word quote is far harder to understand and may violate BLP. Verbatim quotes need not contain fillers like "I'm telling you right now" any more than "Um, Ur, Like..." etc. Elipses (...) work well to keep the text readable without cluttering it up or changing its meaning. While Baldwin probably is uber-liberal, attributing this appellation to a news source seems to establish it as a referenced fact. In this case, I think it makes more sense to present Baldwin's views. If the reader interprets these as uber-liberal, fine. Some might just find them uber-insane or uber-conservative. So I think that the uber reference might violate BLP. I'm not that clear on the policy about this, hence the discussion. Thanks. Bob98133 ( talk) 17:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I like the third one. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Alec Baldwin was the main narrator of the game World in Conflict. Shouldn't we make a note of it in the article? FstrthnU ( talk) 22:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Another editor told me on an article talk page, verifiability, not truth. We have reliable sources that Baldwin has a temper (probably explosive temper but sources just say temper). Baldwin admitted it himself.
Do we censor Wikipedia and leave only positive things about the man or allow reliably sourced temper information to appear here? ABC News, Entertainment Tonight, and Alec Baldwin himself all agree that he has a temper.
Baldwin wrote. "I'm sorry, as everyone who knows me is aware, for losing my temper with my child."
The recording, in which Baldwin called his daughter a "rude, thoughtless pig," and accused her of deliberately missing
JB50000 ( talk) 05:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I see there is already a section on this but that was a year ago. JB50000 ( talk) 05:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone recently (18-Jan 2006) added, to the main article, a sentence asking why Baldwin's appearance in South Pacific on PBS wasn't mentioned in the section on his television work. The credit already appears in the section on his stage work.
You guys know there's a picture of him on the
Jack Donaghy page right?
Never mind, I should read properly before posting... My bad.
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)
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: [ [2]] (scroll to the last paragraph in the Political Views section).
The original (first, longer, pre-Fat&Happy content submission) is here: [ [3]].
Regards,
MirelesJ ( talk) 04:59, 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)
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)
The reference Alec Baldwin narrates the meat.org video actually shows a video narrated by Paul McCartney, not Alec. Suggest delete since not relevant to Alec, or else find the right reference. In fact, this also seems to question whether Alec actually narrated the Meet Your Meat video, since video evidence is lacking.-- 74.107.74.39 ( talk) 01:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I question whether Baldwin's wiki page should include his tongue-in-cheek New Era Cap Company ads that are telecast to the New York/Northeast television audiences during Yankees/Red Sox baseball games. Theres deep interest in this part of country about the 100-year plus rivalry between the Boston Red Sox and the NYYankees! Hence, these very popular ads. If it's added (which I hope it will be) it possibly may appear in Baldwin's "personal" wiki section bc there's an existing comment about Baldwin being a life-long NYYankees fan in that section. BTW, these ads are very funny. New Era is hardly mentioned but the dual between Baldwin (TV's 30 Rock's star) as a die-hard Yankee fan versus John Krasinsky (TV's The Office star) as a die-hard Boston Red Sox fan runs deep and the ads play clever fun w/ it. And, the light-hearted comedy and digs between the two of them make excellent copy. Comments please? (As you can probably guess, I'm not very wiki astute as to writing or editing. So if this -- my two cents -- is in the wrong area, forgive me.) Oh, and if there's a Krasinsky page in wiki perhaps a similar insert would be okay in it.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
in one part of the page it says he was born in new york. but in the bio it says he was born in france?? 72.223.81.74 19:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
whoa. a single film listed in the filmography? a SINGLE movie? even the picture of his face is from a movie that ISN'T the single movie listed!
ouch. i'll add in Glengarry Glenn Rose and some other things, but I can't put dates. so it's gonna be cheap, but oh well.
well, i just noticed there's a PARAGRAPHICAL filmography. heh. not very complete though. i can't do much better.
Added a picture.
^pirate
17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
[ A link he spammed this page with ] is meant to give the visitor a wide angle view of how Alec Baldwin handles his relationships in essence and in practice. It also allows the visitor to examine the characteristics of his own relationships with Alec Baldwin.
Both content and test are based on sound astrological knowledge and research which gained vast popularity among web surfers.
I believe that even though Astrology is not considered a mainstream science, these knowledge and compatibility tool should be made available to whomever wishes to study Alec Baldwin as broadly as possible.
I have no desire to be considered a spammer and I don't want to force [ a link he spammed this page with ] on the founders of Alec Baldwin's article.
I ask you, authors of Alec Baldwin that if you have an objection to placing a link to [ a link he successfully added to the johnny depp article in the External Links section, please write it here. Else, I’ll place the link hoping that it would be a valid resource for Alec Baldwin's fans and researchers.
With appreciation, Midas touch 08:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's Alec having a little heart-to-heart with his daughter. Kim 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I found conflicting information on the extent of Alec Baldwin's vegetarianism (he's currently listed as a vegetarian). According to this webpage, he's only a semi-vegetarian. Aragorn2 18:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Although Alec Baldwin has frequently identified his paternal line as Irish, this ethnic identification appears to be more sociological than genealogical. According to several online family trees, the Baldwins of Brooklyn are of old New England Yankee stock, descendants of John Baldwin an Englishman who settled in Connecticut in the 17th century. Alec's paternal grandmother was Ruth Noble of Edwards, St. Lawrence County, NY. According to several online histories of Edwards, the Nobles were Scottish immigrants who settled in Edwards in the early 19th century. Alec's great grandmother (his father's father's mother), although born in England, did have the very Irish name of Helen Irene McNamara, so he does apparently have some Irish blood on his father's side. Bebill 06:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
There was a discovery channel documentary he was in? What was it? And can someone include it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.205.70.254 ( talk • contribs) 21:19 9 July 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge the only team in Sydney Australia named the Rabbitohs is a National Rugby League (NRL) team which is an Australian adpatation of Rugby. Wikipedia itself has an article on the Rabbitohs - conicidentally Russel Crowe owns the team. Tius 09:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Threatening, expletive-strewn phone message to 11-year old daughter linked here: http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_audio/0419_baldwin.mp3
This "controversy" is the stupidest thing I have ever witnessed on television. Were the Anna Nicole reporters hungry for a new story? This is a private matter between a father and his daughter, and the only reason that it is notable is because the mother violated a court order and released the information. SHE VIOLATED A DIRECT COURT ORDER!!! For Wikipedia to post this information for the public to see is irresponsible, just as it is irresponsible for every television show that describes it. If a family court judge has decided that it is in the best interest of the child to not have these matters discussed in public, I don't know why Wikipedia doesn't honor that important determination.
Bluefield
14:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Bluefield wrote: "If a family court judge has decided that it is in the best interest of the child to not have these matters discussed in public, I don't know why Wikipedia doesn't honor that important determination." I agree wholeheartedly. -- Kslain 19:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed the page as I feel the incident with his daughter didn't need to be an entirely different subject as it relates to Kim Basinger. Amme88 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It isn't "blatant abuse, dude". I worked as a child protective specialist for 4 years, and this wouldn't even warrant a report of inadequate guardianship. Look up a legal definition for abuse or event neglect before you start to throw those words around. The article could reference the audio tape, but there is no need to document the contents of the message. Bluefield 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah CPS is pretty useless. Any organization that helps to prevent fathers from raping their daughters and mothers from beating their babies to death is always bad in my book. I'm with you Mr. Christopher....if they aren't big enough to defend themselves, well then they deserve to get beat up right? Idiot.
Bluefield
12:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to stop deleting the "little pig" references because it is obvious that some editors here don't care about the court order or the damage that the references to this voice mail will do to the kid. Part of the solution or part of the problem. Bluefield 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That what the name of God would be the purpose of the gag order if it didn't apply to members of the media? Don't talk about your custody battle to the local butcher or the guy at the gas station? Of course she heard the message already on her phone, it is the repetition of this message that will damage her in society. Wikipedia is a part of the damage, not the sole cause or even a primary cause by any stretch of the imagination, but the message alone wouldn't have caused even a 1/10th of the damage that the rapid reporting of this story has done. And how did the story get out to allow for all of this reporting? By the violation of a court ordered gag order. So the court order didn't have to mention Wikipedia or every single publication by name, the parents were told to not discuss it with ANYBODY, especially reporters, and the mother decided to ignore that to curry public favor. Bluefield 20:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This cannot be reported on wikipedia. It is BREAKING the law. This is a private matter and only people with no life actually would report it. Alec Baldwin is a free American and is free to treat a child however he wants to. My parent's have yelled at me far worse. IT is the same thing as me starting an article on parent "x" who lives in a quite suburb who has done nothing notible, one day parent "x" gets in a fight with their child and the child goes onto wikipedia and starts an article about it. It is the same thing. What makes Alec Baldwin more special when he gets in a fight with a child it is reported on wikipedia but when Shmitty McGee gets in a fight with his child, there is no article. This section must be deleted. ALSO, i see that some users have posted comments citing some of the specific things he said like "little pig" and other things, saying that this is verbal abuse. How the hell is it your issue to start commenting on what your oppinion of verbal abbuse is? It is called common sense and not some hippy "politically correct" nonsense. It is up to the government to decide that. Leave the poor guy alone and get a life. -- Toccsevobal 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Well then, I will create a page about some person i knew who got in a fight with their child. I am a exceptible reference. Who knows, the media could all be lying. And also, it is breaking the law. There is a court order against his x-wife reporting something like this to the media. It is blaitant disrespect and Alec Baldwin should have no problem saying that he does not feel sorry. -- Toccsevobal 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I included the entire transcript of what he said on the voicemail and removed the select quotes that were cherrypicked from the tape by some editors here. Providing context for what he said makes more sense than just taking the "highlight" quotes and throwing them up here for a little character assassination. Bluefield 20:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Censorship on Wiki? What happened to the factual post of AB being asshole liberal of the year?
Alec Baldwin's picture should be changed, it is hard to recognize him with all that beard goin on. I though the still of him from 30 Rock was perfect in that it was a perfectly recognizable image from him and it was an image of him from a current TV show in which he stars. The picture should at least be changed to him without the facial hair. -- Orangefizzlebiz 03:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ye gods, that picture is frightening! -- Howdybob 14:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
What? No mention of Alec Baldwin's much photographed and discussed furry chest?! When he was a younger, studly dude, Baldwin was constantly put in scenes in which he wore no shirt (example: "Miami Blues"). It appears much of his fame can be attributed not only to his good looks, but his exceptionally hairy chest. Not mentioning this is like not mentioning Dolly Parton's notable bosoms. Buddmar 05:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)buddmar
In 2002, conservative internet blogger Matt Drudge threatened to sue Baldwin for his appearance on the Howard Stern show, during which Baldwin claimed that Drudge was gay and had tried to hit on him in the hallway at ABC studios in Los Angeles when he was doing the Gloria Allred show. [1] No other action was taken by Drudge.
I moved this text here since I have searched the archives and can't find any article with Baldwin or Drudge on 8/06/2002. I think it would be better to track it down and make sure it exists before posting. IMDB on it's own shouldn't be used since they don't guarantee the information on their pages is accurate. -- PTR 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me have your attention for a moment! Let's talk about something important! This article is appalling. No structure, full of bullsh*t, lacking all sorts of notable facts that should be there. Whoever wrote this article - you call yourself a Wikipedia editor, you son of a bitch? You people can't write a biography of a world famous actor, you can't write sh*t, you ARE sh*t, hit the bricks boys and beat it 'cause you are going out!!! You can't play in a man's game. You can't write a decent Wiki article. Because only one thing counts in this life! Get your article to GA status! You hear me, you f*cking f*ggots?! You know what it takes to be a Wikipedia editor? It takes brass balls to be a Wikipedia editor. Why am I here? I came here because Jimbo Wales asked me to, he asked me for a favour. I said, the real favour, follow my advice and fire your f*cking asses because a loser is a loser. Sort this article out boys or hit the bricks! 217.38.66.40 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there are odd gaps in the article. No one says anything about his famous battle with alcoholism, or why his face is bloated and covered in liver spots. Also, the article hardly explains how he rose to stardom nor does it do anything but a weak job of explaining his working relationship with his other famous brothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.42.82 ( talk) 03:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
While the majority of material in most of the sections appears to be fairly accurate and unbiased, the author of the Politics section has driven the tone of the content down to the level of what one would expect to see in a publication such as the National Enquirer. Although the author attempts to couch the material in a semi-journalistic framework, it is clearly gossipy, base and extremely biased against Mr. Baldwin. I have not encountered anything remotely resembling this in any other bio piece I've read on Wikipedia. I am going to edit the section out and will continue to edit it out whenever I see it until some steps are taken by someone in authority at Wikipedia to correct this. This is unwarranted, unprecedented and unprofessional. MiraMcB 11/26/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiraMcB ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The politics section of this article is in dire straights. Very pov and non-encyclopedic. The sourcing is primarily from blogs and that just will not due. I am going to hack and slash this section as per wp:blp and remove all unsourced and contentious material. And Frank, Wp:blp does take precedence over content concerns. Feel free to re-add any material that is npov and has proper sourcing. The Huffington Post and NewsMax will not fly. Turtlescrubber 02:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
On that note who is Bob Elmore and why is it notable that Baldwin has criticized him on his website? 140.140.58.8 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
In an attempt to end the edit war with Inamaka, let me say this;
This event was a very big deal in the media and I think it is well deserving of a space on Wikipedia. We do not have to include a transcript of the tape as the material was "illegally leaked", but the fact that this tape was leaked and the fact that he is suing over it is completely reasonable to include in this article. It's not our place to judge if its fair to Mr. Baldwin or not. We are not advocating breaking court orders or committing libel, we are presenting true information. I think it is very strange that this is no longer in the article and recommend that it is immediately put back in or sent to the noticeboard for a final review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosleybin ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
On Alec Baldwins page it says he and Kim met on the "critically panned The Marrying Man" However on Kim's page it says she and Alec met "when both played romantic lovers in the 1991 success , The Marrying Man." How can The Marrying Man be critically panned and a success at the same time?-- 70.157.42.133 ( talk) 22:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone give this page a proper awards table? -- 68.81.70.65 ( talk) 09:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I put a lot of work into taking out the negative jibes in the article and correcting some errors. This morning 'baldwin' has been changed to 'pig' in the article, I'll change it back. Is there a way to lock this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.125.18 ( talk) 22:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
and gee, I'm looking at the talk page, and there is nothing here on the topic. I'll take the marker out. I do see a dead link [15], so I'll take the associated clause out. Is that the problem? The politics section reads the most well toned as it has ever been right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrisdad ( talk • contribs) 07:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) First of all, comment on the material, not the editor. There is also a policy about no personal attacks, and your comments about checking the articles I have worked for "fundamental errors" certainly looks like one to me. Your interpretation of WP policy is naive at best. You're contradicting yourself over the word firebrand - everyone who knows anything about him knows this is a valid description, then you admit it is a gray area. In fact, using an adjective like that requires a source from a reliable source that says he is a firebrand.
As I have stated ad nauseum, the problem isn't particularly in what you are trying to include, it is more an issue because of the way that you are wording it. Sticking a little "the book says" doesn't fix it. The book says a lot, and at present you are picking and choosing what you are going to use and what you
aren't. You are also choosing how you are presenting it, and from your previous statements, you've made it clear that you see things the way Baldwin does. I've read what you've restored time and again.
Sticking in "the book says" doesn't fix the issues. STOP reverting it and putting in weasel caveats. It needs to be entirely reworded, the unverified claims needs to be removed, and the
unencyclopedic tone needs to come out. You are writing it from a biased perspective, this is a huge issue. I am not confusing anything. However, the paragraphs as you write them do muddy the line.
It goes on and on. And it doesn't matter, each time you revert, you remove what citations were there. It is inappropriate for you for you to disregard mulitple attempts to explain to you why there are issues
when you continue to revert and forge ahead. Just stop at this point until some consensus can be determined. That will involve outside editors. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 10:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) It is against policy to refactor talk page contents in the way you did above. You have broken up my posting and left huge gaps in it. Meanwhile, you simply don't get it. You are not allowed to continue to revert and reinsert over and over again. The way this section is being worded presents a WP:BLP issue. Until that is settled, you are breaking policy by continuing to return the section in the way it is worded. What part of "uncited" do you not understand? This is not a book review. It is an article about Alec Baldwin. There is no place on Wikipedia for a book review. All you can do is briefly discuss the book in a clearly neutral and balanced way. And what citations have you added? "In the book" is not a citation. A citation requires a separate reference entry, and in a case such as this, page numbers. "He writes that she "didn't serve anything that wasn't on the menu"." You keep asserting that this sentence has meaning, but to the new reader, the meaning you contend it has is absolutely unclear. Your interpretation of it won't do. You removed my citation for the voice message, so now it is completely uncited. "In his book Mr. Baldwin admits he makes mistakes, but asks who could be judged for parenthood based on their worst moment taken out of context?" Excuse me, "Mr. Baldwin"? You can't insert a summary of the point of the book that you have drawn in your words. That is original research, your conclusion, unquoted, paraphrased without citation. The video has no credits which the reader can check, it is irrelevant. I am not confused, I know what you are doing. But mostly, you've violated WP:3RR three times over, at each point, I cited WP:BLP and asked that you stop until other editors can be involved to render a consensus over this issue. You've refused to do so, and forged ahead with the same issues of uncited claims and equestionable wording. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 11:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw missing page numbers, I scanned the book and added many. Also added Mark Tabb, he is a co-author you know. 208.54.14.89 ( talk) 16:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC) .. not all the changes took, I'll try again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.89 ( talk) 16:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC) yes it took this time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.89 ( talk) 17:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The section is a little funny. It is supposed to be about what is in a single book but the author has phrased it as though Baldwin is talking directly and it is a collection from different sources. This approach is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.201.166 ( talk) 00:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Grundle2600 -(→Politics and political controversy: For controverisal statements, having the exact quotes is more objective than having a summary.) I agree with your edit summary in general, however I think that in this case, the word-for-word quote is far harder to understand and may violate BLP. Verbatim quotes need not contain fillers like "I'm telling you right now" any more than "Um, Ur, Like..." etc. Elipses (...) work well to keep the text readable without cluttering it up or changing its meaning. While Baldwin probably is uber-liberal, attributing this appellation to a news source seems to establish it as a referenced fact. In this case, I think it makes more sense to present Baldwin's views. If the reader interprets these as uber-liberal, fine. Some might just find them uber-insane or uber-conservative. So I think that the uber reference might violate BLP. I'm not that clear on the policy about this, hence the discussion. Thanks. Bob98133 ( talk) 17:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I like the third one. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Alec Baldwin was the main narrator of the game World in Conflict. Shouldn't we make a note of it in the article? FstrthnU ( talk) 22:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Another editor told me on an article talk page, verifiability, not truth. We have reliable sources that Baldwin has a temper (probably explosive temper but sources just say temper). Baldwin admitted it himself.
Do we censor Wikipedia and leave only positive things about the man or allow reliably sourced temper information to appear here? ABC News, Entertainment Tonight, and Alec Baldwin himself all agree that he has a temper.
Baldwin wrote. "I'm sorry, as everyone who knows me is aware, for losing my temper with my child."
The recording, in which Baldwin called his daughter a "rude, thoughtless pig," and accused her of deliberately missing
JB50000 ( talk) 05:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I see there is already a section on this but that was a year ago. JB50000 ( talk) 05:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone recently (18-Jan 2006) added, to the main article, a sentence asking why Baldwin's appearance in South Pacific on PBS wasn't mentioned in the section on his television work. The credit already appears in the section on his stage work.
You guys know there's a picture of him on the
Jack Donaghy page right?
Never mind, I should read properly before posting... My bad.
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)
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: [ [2]] (scroll to the last paragraph in the Political Views section).
The original (first, longer, pre-Fat&Happy content submission) is here: [ [3]].
Regards,
MirelesJ ( talk) 04:59, 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)
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)
The reference Alec Baldwin narrates the meat.org video actually shows a video narrated by Paul McCartney, not Alec. Suggest delete since not relevant to Alec, or else find the right reference. In fact, this also seems to question whether Alec actually narrated the Meet Your Meat video, since video evidence is lacking.-- 74.107.74.39 ( talk) 01:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I question whether Baldwin's wiki page should include his tongue-in-cheek New Era Cap Company ads that are telecast to the New York/Northeast television audiences during Yankees/Red Sox baseball games. Theres deep interest in this part of country about the 100-year plus rivalry between the Boston Red Sox and the NYYankees! Hence, these very popular ads. If it's added (which I hope it will be) it possibly may appear in Baldwin's "personal" wiki section bc there's an existing comment about Baldwin being a life-long NYYankees fan in that section. BTW, these ads are very funny. New Era is hardly mentioned but the dual between Baldwin (TV's 30 Rock's star) as a die-hard Yankee fan versus John Krasinsky (TV's The Office star) as a die-hard Boston Red Sox fan runs deep and the ads play clever fun w/ it. And, the light-hearted comedy and digs between the two of them make excellent copy. Comments please? (As you can probably guess, I'm not very wiki astute as to writing or editing. So if this -- my two cents -- is in the wrong area, forgive me.) Oh, and if there's a Krasinsky page in wiki perhaps a similar insert would be okay in it.