Talk:Alec Baldwin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

born

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

filmography?

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Baldwin in Relationships

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psychotic Episodes

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

Vegetarianism

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

Irish ancestry

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

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

Documentary

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

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

Under Trivia - Sydney Basketball Team the Rabbitohs?

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

Relationship with Kim Basinger and daughter, Ireland

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

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

It's notable And pretty big in his life; after being accused of abusing his former wife during their marriage he is caught red-handed abusing his own daughter. So no, it wouldn't be irresponcible for wikipedia to post this information for the public to see. In fact it's the right thing to do. What makes you an authority in wikipedia anyway?--58.107.168.72 15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reread my comment above a few times and I can't seem to locate the sentence where I claimed to be an authority on Wikipedia. It is a question of ethics, respect for the justice system and common decency when it comes to protecting a child from mental anguish. And if you think this is an example of somebody abusing their child, you are either not a parent or have no concept of what abuse or neglect are. Talking harshly to your child is hardly abuse, it is an example of a parent losing their temper and nothing more. Bluefield 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's blatant abuse, dude. - 81.179.76.53 18:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's over the telephone, from someone who doesn't live there, recorded for others to witness, with other adults taking action against it. That all would seem to make it relatively trivial. Some children hear this sort of thing every day, in person, with no opposition. Richard K. Carson 03:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A few points from an outside editor. I cannot stand alec baldwin, never could but the daughter controversy is written in a NPOV tone and lacks tantilizing details, this is probably good (the lack of tantilizing details in this article). And any father who calls his 11 year old daughter a pig is guilty of verbal abuse, maybe not CPS abuse (CPS is a useless organization anyhow), but it's abuse and pathetic. Mr Christopher 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

As far as the kid goes, I believe the damage has already been done long before the little pig comments made it into this article. I just don't see little Ireland sitting in some psychiatrist's chair one day saying "My life was peaches and cream until some editor on Wikipedia quoted my dad calling me a thoughtless little pig". It's hard to imagine.

You see, Baldwin left his comments to her on her cell phone. That means she has already heard what he had to say prior to anyone editing this article. And the court order did not mention Wikipedia citing published sources, in fact I am not aware of the court order including any members of the media. Mr Christopher 20:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be constitutional for a court ordert to even do so. Wikipedia is free to quote as much as it needs to, as long as it's notable and verifiable (which at this point, it is both). Disposable Rob 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The intimate, tabloid details of an angry message from a father to his daughter is not the material for an encyclopedia. You can link to it, but it is not notable material for inclusion here. If you cannot understand this, we need a RfC. Skopp (Talk) 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the principal of undue weight is hopelessly contravened by the inclusion of this lengthy quote. It makes up a goodly portion of the entire article, which is far too much. WP:WEIGHT states: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Skopp (Talk) 00:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Censorship on Wiki

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

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

Picture

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

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

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

No mention of his famous chest?

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

I think you are absolutly right...07:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Crépeau (talk • contribs)

BLP text moved here

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

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

I've removed it again. The new ref added is to a fansite and doesn't mention the lawsuit. If necessary, I will post this on BLP. --PTR 13:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it still lists the page six article as the primary source. If we can locate that article then I have no problem including this but as posted on WP:BLP:

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. --PTR 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and post it to BLP. Sources do not have to be available online, as long as we can reliably say they were published, and there are enough secondary sources to confirm that (sources that have stood unchallenged (IMBD, MediaLife) for over 5 years).   Skopp   14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll post. I agree they don't have to be available online but they should be able to be located if they are from a source that has archives. Perhaps this article was left out but I just want to make sure it's not one of those stories that "everyone has heard." --PTR 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This Article

Let me have your attention for a moment! Let's talk about something important! This article is appalling. No structure, full of bullsh*t, lacking all sorts of notable facts that should be there. Whoever wrote this article - you call yourself a Wikipedia editor, you son of a bitch? You people can't write a biography of a world famous actor, you can't write sh*t, you ARE sh*t, hit the bricks boys and beat it 'cause you are going out!!! You can't play in a man's game. You can't write a decent Wiki article. Because only one thing counts in this life! Get your article to GA status! You hear me, you f*cking f*ggots?! You know what it takes to be a Wikipedia editor? It takes brass balls to be a Wikipedia editor. Why am I here? I came here because Jimbo Wales asked me to, he asked me for a favour. I said, the real favour, follow my advice and fire your f*cking asses because a loser is a loser. Sort this article out boys or hit the bricks! 217.38.66.40 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This Article Redux

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

Per Previous Poster's Comments

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

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

Pov/sourcing tags

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

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

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

Basinger and that phone call

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

1. The phone call between Baldwin and his child is private. That he called her a "thoughtless pig" is trivia given undue weight. We all call our children things like this when angry. The fact that this private call was leaked to the press in defiance of a court order is deplorable, and for wikipedia to compound the crime by promulgating the issue and reproducing the content is inexcusable. If anyone has enough prurient interest in the issue, they can hunt it down on the web. The subject, Baldwin, is extremely upset these comments were made public in contravention of a court order, and he has taken legal action over the issue, so printing them here is a direct contravention of WP:BLP.

Let's see you attacked my misspelling of Baysinger's name. Therefore, I must point out that you can't spell and I must point out that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Above you clearly misspell the word promulgating. You spelling incorrect by typing, "prolumgating." The correct spelling is promulgating. Your lack of ability to spell had to be pointed out because you felt the need to attack me personally concerning a misspelled word that I typed.--InaMaka (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Next topic: You make the completely incorrect comment above that (and I quote you directly): "We all call our children things like this when angry." First of all, your comment that ALL people do this is not true. You have no reliable source to base that personal opinion of yours on. I have NEVER called my child anything close to Baldwin's disrespectful words and I NEVER will. At any rate, this is not a valid argument to exclude valid reliably sourced information. You go out of your way to list huge amounts of negative information about Baysinger, but you will not allow even a little taste of the nastiness that Baldwin spit on his child that day. Your editing is biased toward Baldwin's view of the confrontation. Also, you believe that only your version of Baldwin's horrible verbal attack on his child is the only acceptable version--which violates the principles of Wikipedia. You have falsely accused me of engaging in "vandalism" when I make edits. You have falsely accused me of violating 3RR. You are not editing in good faith. Please attempt to see another side of the topic.--InaMaka (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to give anyone's "view" of anything (this is not the Jerry Springer Show, even if you'd like to turn it into that), and to claim I have listed "huge amounts of negative information about Baysinger(sic)" is laughable — all I noted was her history in this affair, nothing more, with one well-cited comment! You do not seem to understand that the comments he made to his child were illegally leaked to the press. Baldwin is suing over the matter. There is no way that this encyclopedia should repeat this private conversation, or intrude on this sub judice matter. Re-read WP:BLP, because you clearly do not understand it yet. ► RATEL ◄ 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The article does not attack Basinger (not "Baysinger" as you keep mispelling it) by noting that she has disobeyed other court orders. It is merely a (cited) statement of fact; readers can draw their own conclusions. It is certainly not a contravention of BLP. If you insist on contesting this, we'll take it to the BLP Noticeboard for a ruling. ► RATEL ◄ 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should take it to the Noticeboard.--InaMaka (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If one other editor supports this, I will do so, or you can do it yourself (it's so obvious that I am right, hardly worth it). ► RATEL ◄ 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

You're responding to a post from over 15 months ago. The phone call is covered in the section about the book Baldwin wrote, briefly. Your addition to the article was reverted because it is repetitious and unreferenced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Marrying Man

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)

Awards

Can someone give this page a proper awards table? --68.81.70.65 (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Page Was Vandalized

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)

Politics section turns into Promise to Ourselves discussion

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)

It would be extremely helpful if you'd wait for a response before heading in to do those things without feedback. It's never helpful to simply remove a dead link. Once it is removed, then no one coming later will know that a new source needs to be found. In this case, however, what you removed were the several repeated links to the book. Each of those sentences must be cited or else it could be views as a legal liability against Basinger, which this article cannot have. I worked for some time the other night, trying to neutralize the tone of the material. One issue was with the previous wording, which tends to slant discussion about the custody problems to support Baldwin's side against Basinger. We can't do that, all we can do is say that this is what Baldwin said about it, and in concise wording, without bias. As it has been returned, it is a case against Basinger, including unsupported assertions that violate WP:BLP. It can't remain. The above editor said to me on my talk page that "he came up to speed and came to conclusions about the divorce industry that took me years to figure out by experiment and investigation." That may well be relevant, but it wasn't exactly mentioned in that way in the article, instead it only dwelled on the specific "bad acts" on Basinger's part and not the more general picture of divorce and courts.

In any case, what was marked wasn't the section on the book, it was the politics section specifically. I marked it because it seems to give undue weight to the politics vs. the rest of the article, which is about his acting career. And that is after some of it was removed based on the relativeness of the material. This section takes up a full 20% of the article, which is more emphasis than his politics play in his notability. I removed parts that detailed, needlessly, a back and forth from a nearly three year old radio show, a threat to sue him that did not come to fruition, a mention that he criticized both Republicans and Democrats over the economy. Still, I believe the section continues to have too much weight. It also describes things in terms that can't be supported. The opening sentence in the section says Baldwin is a political firebrand who has spontaneously lampooned politicians from both parties. His political comments are typically delivered with a disarming mix of frankness perspective and humor. This may, or may not, be true, but to say this without benefit of citation from reliable third-party sources renders it the opinion of someone who wrote that statement. I'm not so sure that the middle paragraph on his statements about Dick Cheney isn't too detailed. As the above poster also said, Baldwin is a comedic actor, his political commentaries need to be taken in that light. Repeating them word for word is unproductive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats much better. I agree that the section is too long. I had cut it down also. However, the tone of the article was decidedly biased against Baldwin. The fact he is a firebrand and lampooned both democrats and republicans is both self evident, as the supporting material is *already in the section* so it doesn't need a reference - and it is highly significant in that it shows lack of bias. It is nothing more than a neutral summary statement in an acceptable pyramidal style of writing. It should go back in. Let me read it again, and see about reduction.

The section on the book talks about the contents of the book. That is the heading of the section already. This book is highly significant in the parental alienation debate. And why take out the link to Baldwin discussing the book? It is a very good video for those who want a quick summary. Dimitrisdad (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

But Wikipedia policy doesn't support writing a statement such as the firebrand statement. It requires a source, or else it is some editor's personal observation and WP:OR does not allow that. It does need a reference, and it is not a neutral statement. That the article might show bias against Baldwin is the reason I tagged that section to begin with. That is what undue weight is all about. Meanwhile, the section on the book can only talk about the book in neutral terms, and as it was prior to my revisions, it was not in neutral terms. Wording that starts out "Baldwin explains" implies fact vs. a person's viewpoint, in that case Baldwin's. The entire book is his point of view on this situation, but we can't write about it in that way. The link to the video is a link that is not allowed per WP:EL. With all respect, although you first edited on WP over a year ago, you have only made 121 edits on 6 different pages, over a 13 day period, since that time. On the other hand, I've made over 16000 edits on 7137 pages. I'm saying this because I am trying to relate to you that I know Wikipedia guidelines and policies very very well, and I'm not trying to jerk you around. The issues I've brought up are legitimate and serious concerns. biography of living persons violations are the most serious of all, as it can leave the project open to a liable suit. As it was, that is very close to what the book section was doing - handing Kim Basinger a reason to sue. It's serious and the section must be neutral - unbiased. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If this book is important in the parental alienation debate, then why aren't you writing about how that is, instead of insisting on returning, over what I have clearly said is a WP:BLP issue which cannot remain? Instead of recounting his list of grievances against his ex-wife, if it is significant in some greater context, then I would strongly urge you to consider discussing that instead of writing a book report. Do you have sources that state the book is significant in that debate? You can't simply add a disclaimer like: "This section is about the book "A Promise to Ourselves" and reflects the material in that book" and make it all okay. It does not present a single item that would be necessary to make it neutral - which would be Bassinger's statements on the issue, for example. Why should the reader be expected to believe for fact what he says about what she spent on the case when it is someone with whom Baldwin is so angry? In short, it is written squarely supporting one side against the other. It can't do that. Please go read any other good or featured article and see how things are neutrally presented. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My you are prodigious, I'm two edit conflicts behind on this page already. Here are my comments to your prior comments, and please be patient and let me read the most recent ones.

The section on the book talks about the contents of the book. That is the heading of the section already. This book is highly significant in the parental alienation debate. And why take out the link to Baldwin discussing the book? It is a very good video for those who want a quick summary. Dimitrisdad (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

But Wikipedia policy doesn't support writing a statement such as the firebrand statement. It requires a source, or else it is some editor's personal observation and WP:OR does not allow that. It does need a reference, and it is not a neutral statement. That the article might show bias against Baldwin is the reason I tagged that section to begin with. That is what undue weight is all about. Meanwhile, the section on the book can only talk about the book in neutral terms, and as it was prior to my revisions, it was not in neutral terms. Wording that starts out "Baldwin explains" implies fact vs. a person's viewpoint, in that case Baldwin's. The entire book is his point of view on this situation, but we can't write about it in that way. The link to the video is a link that is not allowed per WP:EL. With all respect, although you first edited on WP over a year ago, you have only made 121 edits on 6 different pages, over a 13 day period, since that time. On the other hand, I've made over 16000 edits on 7137 pages. I'm saying this because I am trying to relate to you that I know Wikipedia guidelines and policies very very well, and I'm not trying to jerk you around. The issues I've brought up are legitimate and serious concerns. biography of living persons violations are the most serious of all, as it can leave the project open to a liable suit. As it was, that is very close to what the book section was doing - handing Kim Basinger a reason to sue. It's serious and the section must be neutral - unbiased. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

First, your statement about WP:EL is an exaggeration. It says that such inline links are not preferred, it doesn't say they are not allowed. It also at the top talks about appropriateness of a link. The idea of this policy is to prevent a wiki page from becoming an index rather than an article. A link at the end of a book review to the author taking about his book to a prestigious intellectual club is hardly inappropriate. If you like, we could turn this into a reference instead, in which case 'the policy does not apply'. The fact you would present a spun version of this policy as fact backed by 7137 pages edited (1 billion hamburgers sold) well, does make me feel jerked around.

Secondly, ok, so you take issue with "Baldwin explains" is exactly what he does, in the book, he provides an explanation. The issue I have is that salient material was chopped out of that section. The menu comment is highly significant. It is an insightful remark. Being a victim of parental alienation and the meta violence of a spouse is highly significant any determining one's actions. That is the context that TMZ left out. Wiki should not do the same thing. And it is in the book. Dimitrisdad (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I take issue with the entire way that you are persisting in wording this section. The way it is written is a biography of living persons violation. I am not going to debate you over whether one small quote means something. If it means that to you, then it is your point of view. I am not spinning a version of a policy, I am telling what over two years and 16000 edits has taught me about what is, and what is not, acceptable on Wikipedia. The relevance of quotes, what TMZ did or did not do, according to Alec Baldwin, etc., is your perspective on this book. Your perspective does not count. The only thing that counts in discussing this book in any other terms than straight, well crafted and succinct description requires outside, verifiable third party sources. You are writing this section as if you were Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger is the enemy. How much clearly can I state this? It is forbidden by WP:BLP. You cannot make Baldwin the conquering hero and Basinger the model of evil. Period. WP:BLP says such material "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'." (Bold as is used in the policy.) WP:BLP is the policy that overrides all others. It cannot remain as it is. It is biased and and makes unsupported claims. If you revert it again, it will be reported to AN/I. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

man let me catch up. Another edit conflict. Here is the response to the commment before the last one. I'll read the most recent one after I get this posted. I'll post again to let you know I read the most recent one, OK?

1) Firebrand - summary is not synthesis. This is no different than saying he has black hair. There is no one on this planet that knows anything about Baldwin who would not say Firebrand is an adjective that describes him as much as black hair does. If there were any debate about this whatsoever, then you would be right, but there is not. A wiki is not a verbatim copy of other articles, in fact such copying is also against the rules. Admittedly this is a grey area with this adjective, but it is a very helpful summary statement, it would be too bad to lose it. 2) About the book section. No, you have deleted about 4 revisions of mine all putting in caveats that it is material coming from the book. I even added it to every sentence, and you deleted that one too. This is obviously something more to you than a WP:BLP issue. In addition you have deleted salient statements and context for the recording quote. 3) neutrality requiring a statement from Bassinger. Not required here. You are confusing a review of material from a book with material given directly. If a wiki article said 'bassinger did such and such' then yes, the other side has an opinion. But if you say Baldwin's book says such and such, then the opposing 'opinion' would be whether the book said it, not what it said. You are talking like you are debating Baldwin directly. Bassinger doesn't get an opinion about what Baldwin wrote, what he wrote is in black and white. Since you brought it up, I'll state the obvious, how is it that someone who has done over 7,000 articles makes such fundamental errors. Can you send me a list of those articles so I can check them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrisdad (talk • contribs) 10:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

about your most recent post, I think I have already covered this, the overriding thing here is that your are confusing material from the book with material given directly. According to the book Bassinger is a shrew, and it is quite fair to repeat material from the book that has this message, because that is what is in the book. You may not like what is in the book, but that doesn't give you the right to take it out of the article, there is no such wiki rule. Now I'm going to post another version of the book review, with all of the 'according to the book' in it. If you want to point out a specific sentence or sentences we can handle them one by one. Ok, I'm caught up now.Dimitrisdad (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC) p.s. in answer to your question I didn't say it was an important book on the topic of parental alienation because I don't have a citing for it.

(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

I have not done this. What I present gives a fair description of the book, I didn't leave out any opposing points made within that text.

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.

I did not say I see things the way Baldwin does, I said I was familiar with other research and studies for material he uses in the book. I.e. I'm not starting from scratch.

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 

I am not reverting. I have been changing my text in response to your feedback. I have been putting in material which I brought up in discussion explaining why it was important, and then you have turned around and taken it out without explanation.

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.

• "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?" This is apologist wording at best, it's poor writing and biased at worst.

I can see that a person who hasn't read the book might confuse this as my drawing a conclusion, but that is not what has been done here. This is a point Baldwin makes repeatedly in the book. I.e. the divorce system judges fathers on their worst moment. It is a salient point to people who work in this area.Dimitrisdad (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Basinger sold the voice mail recording to TMZ.com, who published it widely and out of context." Where is the proof of that?

1) I already changed this in response to your last criticism of it about 4 of your deletions ago. This is also stated in the book. It is also the case that every idiot on the planet knows it now. I will be glad to add more citings to the fact it was sold to TMZ if you really think it needs more.Dimitrisdad (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Basinger spent over a million dollars to withhold her daughter." How do you know? How does he know?

ITS IN THE BOOK -- THIS IS A BOOK REVIEW it says "IN THE BOOK ..." Dimitrisdad (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "after seven years of repeated denied access, unanswered telephone calls, interrupted work days, spoiled international travel for visits, and over two million dollars spent, in April of 2007 Baldwin left an angry voicemail message." This is worded in a way that gives him an excuse. That's biased and asserts a POV.

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

you have this turned around, I am writing a section on a review of a book, it is right there in the seciton heading. You are debating Baldwin directly. Also, you are removing my citations each time you revert this, I didn't see any others that were removed.Dimitrisdad (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

These are not just reverts. I have been changing my text in response to your criticisms and you just delete the whole thing I write each time. I have put back my text which you have not provided an explanation for removing but I have provided an explanation for being there, or text you appear to be confused about as my conclusion rather than part of the book. I would be willing to edit further, I can add a citation for the TMZ sale, but I don't appreciate my edits being chopped out repeatedly.

break (Further Discusion on A Promise to Ourselves)

(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)

got me on how you could be saying I chopped anything out. I included everything you had, but added a description of what the book said, but you chop that out repeatedly. Nothing wrong with reviewing the contents of a book, there are lots of pages in wiki land that explain what an author has written in his or her book. Shall we remove all of those descriptions? Everything in this article has a citing point, if this continues I'll go through and add block quotes and page numbers. You will like that less. The video is shows Baldwin being announced very clearly at the commodore club, it is all announced and dated. It is also an excellent source about the book by the author himself. This is a book on an important subject of wide interest, parental alienation. I'm sorry you don't like the nature of parental alienation, but in parental alienation one parent wages a war against another. Baldwin describes a classic case, it is topical, and being discussed in books. If you have a reference from Basinger in reply to the book, then add it.

it is a little tiring going back and forth with someone who insists on writing a wiki about a book he has never read, and in repeatedly editing out the point of the book because he feels it isn't neutral. The book is what it is.

Let me say clearly that I will not tolerate person aspersions and attacks and I've removed the sarcastic heading change you made and will give you a brief opportunity to remove the aspersions in the above note. You've been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations. I've reworded what you again have returned to this article. Let me say for the record, your writing skills need a brush up. As the editor below says, this isn't an article about that book, so the "wiki about a book" comment is irrelevant and spurious. At present, you are a single purpose account with an agenda that has basically been to present a skewed discussion of a book which apparently has personal meaning to you. Stop contradicting yourself about the parental alientation issue. Stop claiming it is an important work on the subject. As an argument, it holds no more water than if you were claiming that in the article. You are biased on the subject and your contributions reflect that. The video is not acceptable, Baldwin has probably appeared dozens of times to talk about the book, one mention of an appearance on a book tour is completely and totally irrelevant. The only thing I will agree with you on is that, yes, custody is a war waged. The problem is that you seem intent on skewing the weight of the article in that direction. If you actually do start inserting block quotes from the book as threatened you will be conducting tenditious editing and that will not be tolerated either. The section as you left it has been slightly edited for improved prose and increased neutrality. There are tags placed for page numbers in several places. I'll give it a day or two for the page numbers, then it is coming out. It has to be verifiable. It is incumbent upon you to provide the specifics of where the reader can find the facts you put forth as from the book. It is your responsibility. Do it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm going to remind all editors involved to comment on content, not the contributor. The above section title is wholly inappopriate and needs to be struck out or changed. Refactoring anyone's comments is bad practice and a blockable offense. As for the actual content dispute, there's really no need to go into great detail regarding Baldwin's book. An article should be devoted to why the person is notable to begin with, not a review of their book. While personal issues are usually addressed, there's no need devote an entire section that is basically a rehash of the entire book and its contents. I suggest that current section be rewritten. Aside from being overly detailed, there are basic mistakes that need to be fixed and the tone is not encyclopedic (we don't address someone as Mr. or Mrs., it's their full name or last name only). I'm not going to revert what has been done right now because it seems there's already a mini edit war breaking out and I'm not going to add to it. Work it out here before editing again please. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 19:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact the tape was sold to TMZ and they published it, against laws on publishing information on minors is very important and should be put back in. (There are a number of sources for this, Promise to Ourselves is one of them. You would have to be living under a rock to not know about it right now, though some years from now it may not be remembered as well.) In any case the reader would be short changed to not be told why he or she had heard so much about this tape: 1) If Basinger or her people had not sold it to TMZ, or TMZ had not published it, we would never have known about it. 2) Though the recording reflects negatively on Baldwin, the fact Basinger would use it to try and destroy him reflects negatively on her, but more importantly it is symptomatic of parental alienation syndrome which is a current topic of general interest. 3) Publishing material on the minor is very bad for the minor. Can you imagine watching your mom or dad be vilified in the media and known to all the people in the world? Most teenagers would melt to say the least. This was meta-violent act directed at the child, whether the perpetrator intended that or not. Do not propagate this in the wikipedia article. The wikipedia article needs to handle this fairly, and provide the information about the TMZ sale being unusual and show Baldwins amazing tenacity and dedication to his daughter in the face of adversity over the years. He could have walked from her. Common sense from many is that he should have. Many others have. It speaks to the strength of fatherhood to his role as a father that he didn't. Remember Ireland as a reader also, so before you go change Baldwin's last name to Pigney again, remember who you are hurting. 4) As yet another reason TMZ should not have done this is that it was ruinous to Alec Baldwin as well. It is in fact normal for parents to get upset on occasion, each of us have parents with different personalities (that is why they are our parents and not someone else's), it is a very good question he asks in who could be judged on their worst day (and have that in the world wide media gratis one's ex?). Maybe some of you have not raised children, chances are most of you have not experienced a contentious divorce, or even read the literature on this. .. and that brings us back to A Promise to Ourselves, it is a very good book on the subject, independent if one cares about these three people, per se', or not.

As a comment of more general framework, and something I fault wiki for in general, is the inclusion of 'criticism' sections in bios (often by another name). One might say bios are of two types, constructive, or de-constructive. A constructive bio tries to build up a person's body of work from the point of view of their own ideals of contribution. The reader is assumed to start with zero knowledge, and the writer assumes that persons body of work to be summarized/introduced is good and worthwhile (which is one of the more common reasons why a person merits a bio in the first place). A constructive bio may note some hiccups or stumbles, but it is largely written from the point of view that the person being written about has a contribution to the world, and this needs to be explained. In contrast, a deconstructive bio starts by assuming the reader knows a great deal about the subject, and then it goes on to explain why their 'supposed' contribution is not valid. Deconstruction is much more difficult than construction, for many reasons: 1) the reader must know a great deal about the subject for it to make sense. 2) the writer must know more about the subject of the contribution than the person being written about (wow, that is a high threshold) 3) the writer is taking on the historians of the past who constructed the person in the first place! - "they are all wrong," the writer posits. As an example, consider Jackson Pollock. A supporter of this art form would see him as a man internally tortured but over came that to give us great art. A non-supporter could paint him as an alcoholic who got lucky with good marketing once. The former description, which is constructive is the reason we give him a bio page. It is also a lot more fun to read. The latter description presupposes the author knows more about art than the body of people who say he is great, it supposes that the reader will appreciate a deconstruction (chances are they don't know who he is in the first place). Also, it isn't much fun to read.

Constructive bios are appropriate for encyclopedias as we assume the reader doesn't know the material. Deconstructive bios, when appropriate, are appropriate for dissertations and master piece academic works - as it lets the candidate brag about their knowledge to those who understand the topic deeply, and it may change the course of history -- not what encyclopedias are about.

What I see wikipedia authors doing is constructing a person in a cursory manner, and then attempting to deconstruct them at length based on popularly stated things in the media. But this is il-formed, as the reader of an encyclopedia is assumed not to be an expert, the construction is insufficient to bring a reader to the point of being prepared for a deconstruction, the popular material used in deconstruction is not well grounded.

In further support of this observation, I will note that no one who has edited "A Promise to Ourselves" has even read it, except myself. So certainly, no one should be deconstructing it. Indeed, I wish those who had not read a book would not edit a section that talks about it. If you think a fact portrayed is wrong, then ok, go look it up. I don't apologize, research takes work. In the least ask about it on the discussion page before chopping away.

It is unreasonable to require that every sentence in the summary of "A Promise to Ourselves" has a reference with page number. Especially as it is a summary - summaries come from all over a book. Also, it is not consistent with other wiki articles. If this same criteria were universally applied to wikipedia the vast majority of the database would be gone.

In general I would suggest that wikipedia remove criticisms (deconstructive) sections from bios and deep topics, as they can not be adequately supported in this environment/venue/readership/set of authors. Let criticism occur naturally as two opposing views are both constructed in separate articles. Then add cross references.

I am considering setting aside some time to further Construct Baldwin's and Mark Tabb's thesis from A Promise to Ourselves, though I am not happy this appears necessary. I think it is disrespectful of my time to force me to read the book to you. The summary I originally posted was clearly marked as a summary of the book and was not different in form from the many other such summaries on wikipedia, and the material I presented was a fair representation of the contents of the book. Dimitrisdad (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I didn't read all of your dissertation on construction vs. deconstruction and your overall comments about Wikipedia. I will state quite clearly that you are showing extreme arrogance in suggesting that others not touch something from an editorial point of view unless they have read the book. The simple fact is that most readers who come across the article will not have read the book, and it is your responsibility to supply the points in the book where an outside editor or reader needs to go in order to verify what you are claiming is in the book. Go look at any good or featured article that contains discussion of a book or work, that contains direct material being cited as from the book, and there will be specific citations pointing the reader to the page where the facts and quotes, even partial ones, can be found. It's policy. As I have said, and another editor has said, this article is not a book review. It is an encyclopedia article. You have to prove what you say, and sticking in a handful of ibids that refer to the book as a whole doesn't cut it. If you want to waste your time constructing "Baldwin's and Mark Tabb's thesis" for this article, then waste it. You will only be giving the section more undue weight. What I would suggest you do, if you really want to explore that book to that type of depth, then create a page that covers the book only. Just click this link: A Promise to Ourselves. It will open an entirely brand new page and then you can construct to your heart's content. But I will tell you upfront, you're still going to have to give page numbers for each and every fact or quote that you put in. It's policy. The policy is there for a specific reason. Anything written in Wikipedia has to be referenced to protect the project from liability claims. A good example of a liability issue is when you wrote that Basinger sold the tape to TMZ. If you can't provide specific references that say she sold it, then Basinger is free to sue the Wikimedia Foundation for liable. It would be a lot better for it to be an outside source besides the book for something like that. There was very little changed from your last revision, except to remove the claim that Basinger sold the tape and that video, which really isn't essential in the article. As I said, he's been stumping all over the country to support this book and there is no point in highlighting one appearance. Some language was brushed up, and it was clarified in a more fluid manner that things in the section were what Baldwin wrote in the book, without the appearance that Wikipedia is endorsing his viewpoint. I thought the addition of the quote about Basinger was a good addition. But since it's a quote, it has to have a page number. It's policy.

There is not a thing that I did to that section that is not within Wikipedia guidelines and policies. You are quite wrong to say that other articles don't require the type of referencing that is being requested on this section. You are writing text that says the book says something, and it is incumbent upon you to supply the page numbers for content that is controversial. The occasional reader, other Wikipedia editors, and reviewers have to know precisely where to find it. Don't threaten to extend the section, it has sufficient weight in this article and it will be relatively easy for a consensus to form that it should not have more weight. Create the new page. Finally, let me remind you of something. Look at the line below the open edit window. It says Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. There are over a million articles on Wikipedia, and less than a couple thousand full time editors. Do you really think that it is possible that any encyclopedia can be created by editors who are only experts in a subject? Copy editing does not require expertise in a subject. In fact, it is much easier to tag issues in an article when one hasn't in-depth expertise. It makes it only that much clearer what needs further sourcing, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize non-neutral language. I would suggest at this point that dispute mediation be pursued, because I see no agreement on this issue forthcoming without it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not True! First off the 'reference' you complain about my removing turns out to be that of the recording itself. Adding that here is 1) __illegal__ as you can't publish it without permission of both parents to 2) a meta-violent act directed at the child, by you and by extension the wiki 3) disrespectful to the families. not only against policy but.. insensitive, disrespectful, and law breaking. And this is what all the fuss has been about, because you want the recording in. Base. I hope to hear an apology. Dimitrisdad (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to read more of your drivel. I took the tape reference out again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrisdad (talk • contribs) 11:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. That is the end of this. I will remind you once again that you need to comment on the content, not the editor. I will find a different outside source for the news report of the tape. I have no hidden agenda about this, I have no bias for or against either of the persons involved. The truth is, I could give a shit about Alec Baldwin or Kim Basinger. What is very clear is that you have a bias and are operating from that basis, which is reflected in how you write and how you slant this. I will not allow you to cast aspersions on me, accuse me of "meta-violence", being disrespectful or breaking the the law. These are personal attacks and will not be tolerated. You were removing the link even before you looked at the page. You didn't take out the reference, you performed yet another in a series of gross reverts that started 2 days ago. I have requested page protection for the article until a dispute mediator can be brought in and consensus be formed about this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

page numbers for some references in Promise ..

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)

Thank you. The page numbers were incorporated and formatted into the content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Promise Book

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)

Yeah, I know. There's been a lot of contention about this, and it has mostly centered around a biased POV and attempting to make it more neutral and reflective of the fact that it is only Baldwin's side of the story. It is supposed to reflect that it is his book, not confirm it as truth. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Exact quotes?

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)

Alternative lead image choices

• 
• 
• 
• 

I like the third one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

World in Conflict Role

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)

Games are not significant works in the context of an actor's career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth?

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)

Yeah, as a matter of fact, there is coverage of that, plus extensive coverage of his book. What does "but that was a year ago" have to do with it? We also do not engage in smearing article subjects, which is what it sounds like you wish the article would do. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the link to the porno actor that JB50000 put on Alec Balwdin's WP:BLP page, and the already discussed portion about the incident with his daughter. The portion about Baldwin's temper seemed relevant. DD2K (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

South Pacific

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

Picture

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

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

Suicide attempt

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

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

SNL Appearance with Sarah Palin (Political Views)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The content I want to retain is here: [[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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links

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

Alec Baldwin definitely narrated a video about meat production - you can buy the video [4] or watch it online [5], so I guess that's evidence (at least the DVD). I'll change the link. --Six words (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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