Talk:Adam Baldwin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Military & Roles

He's played so many military/tough guy roles (Full Metal Jacket, Firefly, Chuck, Independence Day, Stargate SG-1). Was he in the military? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.215.130 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Political views removed again

I just removed the following: "Politically, he is an unabashed conservative." I know Adam and he doesn't sound like this: neither in syntax nor word choice. I don't know what his politics are but unless someone has proof the actor and this internet poster are the same person none of this poltical stuff has any point in being in this article. Filchyboy 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin confirms in this interview that it's him posting to the Firefly boards. Joss Whedon also alludes here and here to Baldwin's conservative politics. --Muchness 12:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like people are whitewashing his profile. It isn't POV to say "Adam Baldwin expresses belief in X." It would be POV to say "Adam Baldwin expresses belief in X, and X is totally better than Y." ?Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.249.133 (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

While I respect Wikipedia's stance on being NPOV, I'm curious if there's any sort of guidance regarding relevance. I bring this up because I just finished looking at Kate Mulgrew's entry on here and there's absolutely no mention of her politics, save for the fact that she's married to a politician (it doesn't even designate HIS political affiliations), and yet I've known on many occasions at fan conventions for her to go on a (liberal) political tear. I find that this is the case all across Wikipedia, that individuals with left-leaning political viewpoints are glossed over or not even mentioned, but those with right-leaning stances (such as Adam Baldwin or Angie Harmon - and yes, he is VERY conservative), it's treated as if it is extremely relevant, even when the liberal is more active politically (as is the case with Kate Mulgrew vs. Adam Baldwin).

Now I don't mean to suggest that one or the other approach is more correct (i.e., should the political info be in or not). My personal thought is that it should depend on how active the person is politically. That is, Adam is conservative and can be quite unabashed about it, but to date he's just posted on a few fan boards and irritated some of his castmates; for him, it shouldn't be relevant. Angie Harmon, on the other hand, has spoken at the Republican National Convention, making it relevant for her. Kate Mulgrew, that's a toss-up - she was merely expressing a personal opinion in a public forum, but not as some sort of "official" voice of the party.

I'll make it even easier - rather than talking about a person as being conservative or liberal, perhaps just report on specific verifiable political outings they've been involved in, i.e., Angie Harmon spoke at the RNC, and let the reader make their own call as to her politics. In the case of Adam Baldwin, I think that means it's not relevant in his case because he's not made any official political appearances like an RNC speech - though that can become relevant should he ever decide to do so. Nolefan32 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Adam Baldwin is quite active politically. He writes for such websites as Big Hollywood. We should include his political leanings since he's very politically active. PokeHomsar (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Baldwin's politics.

I don't see why all mentions of Baldwin's conservative political beliefs have been removed from this article, when prominent liberal actors often have their partisan affiliation mentioned in their Wiki articles. Example: I just came from Scarlett Johannson's page and she has two or three sentences on her being a Democrat, etc.

I am going to add his party affiliation to this article, in the biography section, as there is no "Personal life" section. If such a section is created, feel free to move the comment there.

-Troy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.161.40 (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentions are fine, but they need verifiable citations to back them up. --Chuck Sirloin (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does his political affiliations matter? He's not a politician or a pundit, he's an actor. Nolefan32 (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As an actor, he's a public figure, albeit not the most famous one but still thus capable of influencing public opinion, thus his political beliefs are worthy of being mentioned. Plus I believe is amazing how this guy, being a conservative and all, worked for shows with a fairly liberal philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzalo84 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I don't care either way. I'd like a consistent standard for this applied to all celebrity bio pages, but Wikipedia doesn't care about consistency. And what do you mean by "shows with a fairly liberal philosophy"? If you meant shows with casts that have a "liberal philosophy", then that's pretty much what all conservative actors in Hollywood have to deal with, isn't it? --70.128.116.146 (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's my viewpoint, too - the standard isn't consistent. And the fact that he is a celebrity, I don't think his political viewpoints or his views on anything else under the sun should be considered significant enough for inclusion until such time as he begins *officially* stating them. That is, unless he's stumping for political candidates or slated to speak at the Republican National Convention, it's not worthy of mention. The dividing line shouldn't be that Actor X is a Republican, Democrat, or whatever, it should be is he an ACTIVE Republican, Democrat, etc. (active, as in Sean Penn or Angie Harmon's level of activity). Nolefan32 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin Sheen, for example, has been arrested multiple times during protests and is very publically upfront about his views and political beliefs. For his entry, it merits mentioning his ideology. Adam Baldwin, on the other hand, has not been publically involved in any political activities nor has supported any candidates and so on. Postings on the internet hardly makes him any different than anyone else, celebrity or not. And not for nothing, but the people who keep crying about how it's "whitewashing" not to mention what he believes, pretty much tip their hand as to what THEY believe and what their motives are. Hint, it isn't making the best Wiki article so much as being angry at Mr. Baldwin for having a different viewpoint from their own. Wiki NPOV exists for a reason. (76.201.154.234 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

So what counts as "officially"? Does it have to be a press release? Or can it be conversations that Joss Whedon alludes to publicly? Can it be posts made on public forums? The notion that actually, you know, expressing political views isn't a sufficiently "official" statement is ludicrous. The only reason anyone gives a sh*t about deleting this stuff is because he's a popular actor who's actually conservative, and Whedon's following generally isn't. Which is why they use ludicrous logic: There's no evidence of conservative views...and if there is, it wasn't him...and if it was him, it shouldn't be included anyway. Un-freakin-believable. People go to wikipedia to learn FACTS about THINGS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.244.226 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd think the source would have to be Adam Baldwin himself, not heresay from others. And it cannot be from a blog. And if he does announce it, even if it is via an interview with some reporter, entertainment or otherwise, it can be included within this article. Just because he's an actor doesn't mean this page isn't a biography of him. Any good source can be used as information for a biographical article, regardless of his politics. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin WRITES for conservative political websites like Big Hollywood. That's enough to include right there. PokeHomsar (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Then be bold and do so. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

chuck

theres a supprisingly small amount of info about adams involvement in chuck on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.38.130 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

bighollywood.breitbart column

The article here states that he writes a column for bighollywood.breitbart.com and provides a link to the website. We need a source to verify that that is actually the Adam Baldwin who is the topic of this WP article, and not just someone using his name and picture, so I've added a {{Clarify}} tag to that section. —scarecroe (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Whedonesque reports that the Twitter account is genuine and the Twitter account links to the Big Hollywood bio. Also, The Ed Morrissey Show interviewed him and indicated the actor and the writer are one and the same. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hyper Sonic

Someone needs to fix this link since it redirects to Sonic the Hedgehog (which has nothing to do with the 2002 film Hyper Sonic). I'm not sure how to change the link to Hyper Sonic (film) without it showing the (film) part, which is not needed in a filmography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darktangent (talk • contribs) 06:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Movies

I'm reasonably certain this guy was in the Patriot as the American officer in the British Dragoons. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.29.227.4 (talk ? contribs) 04:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

Correct, listed here and also here as Capt. Wilkins.Ebrockway (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Relation to Baldwin brothers?

Does Adam Baldwin have any relation to the Baldwin brothers? Hackwrench 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the IMDB article (linked from the article here), he is not. Perhaps that should be included, seeing as many people who are not familiar with him assume he is related to them.Rockhopper10r 15:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be included. But I don't think it should be in the first sentence. That doesn't seem right.66.207.206.210 (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

He is not a Baldwin brother. I corrected the article. It's silly that his non-relation to the Baldwin Brothers is mentioned before anything else, but where else would it make sense? ARSchmitz (talk) 05:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This must have been removed. I just came here to check if he was one of the Baldwin brothers or not, actually, so maybe it should be added. It's not irrelevant that he would likely be confused with the biggest acting "family" in the business and should be noted that he is not a part of it. 115.64.118.162 (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is also why I came here. If you're an actor and your last name is Baldwin, this is information that should be included in your article. I'll look for an appropriate place to put it. 69.118.29.171 (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe add a quote from his twitter (@adamsbaldwin) - he said "For the record: I find no downside in being mistaken as one of Alec's brothers. ~ Politics aside, Alec is a remarkably talented performer."94.168.168.153 (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

[1] -- Zondor (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Cult Following

The lead says, "He also established a cult following as Jayne Cobb in Firefly." I understand that the show itself has a loyal fanbase, but is there any evidence that he or his character has a "cult following" of their own? Primogen (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"The evils of Canada..."

Has anyone details and sources on this story?84.152.46.81 (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Firefly navbox

The editor Robsinden (talk) has removed the Firefly (franchise) navbox falsely claiming that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL states "no actors in navbox when in fact is says nothing of the sort, so I am here to get a consensus. discuss Sarty72 (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see discussion at Template talk:Firefly#Actors in navboxes. However, as currently the actors are not included, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL we do not transclude navboxes onto article pages that are not linked in the template. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Political Views removed

Why does the article state "involved in controversy regarding corruption in gaming journalism." When the cited article only state that vague allegations on a web forum were made. This is far from neutral. Suggested edits...

  -In 2014 he became a vocal supporter of the GamerGate movement, involved in controversy regarding alleged corruption in gaming journalism.

or - In 2014 he became a vocal supporter of the GamerGate movement, which alleges corruption in gaming journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.158.164 (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV material removed from article [with MSM cleanup that would have been applied to a liberal]:

Adam Baldwin is a proponent of conservative values. He is pro-Iraq war. He recommends his fans read books such as those by David Horowitz and Rush Limbaugh. He is one of Rush Limbaugh's biggest fans and quotes him online on fan boards devoted to his work. He has publicly expressed disgust for Democrats and liberals online. One example of many: http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages?msg=13716.14108

Many other examples of his reading and idealogies [sic] can be found on that forum. He says he's proud of his ideology, so this should stay here in any description of him.

—the preceding unsigned comment is by 207.69.139.157 (talk • contribs) {}

Just as a quick note, that's actually POV material (it expresses a point of view) - Wikipedia strives for NPOV. Good removal! --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 06:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Apart from being POV, is it certain that the forum user is really the Adam Baldwin concerned? Perhaps it is a "fan" who is over zealous? Just because Adam Baldwin may or may not have publicly voiced his support of the US' actions doesn't make him "far-right" or "neo-con". ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.126.214.137 (talk ? contribs) 14:24, 25 March 2006 (URC).

The Goal of the Wikipedia NPOV rule is that the *article* should be presented without bias, not to keep "expressed points of view" from Wikipedia.

Baldwin's writing is certainly gaining a lot of attention, and it should be included. And, it should be presented in Baldwin's own words (or, perhaps commentary from other main-stream or notworthy responses).

Brietbart.com isnt a "forum" but a news org;

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/abaldwin/2009/11/03/sesame-street-all-monsters-are-equal/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.5 (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

GamerGate reference poorly sourced and irrelevant

I find it interesting that neither of the sources given for Baldwin's coining of the term "GamerGate" actually display the tweet where he originated the term (which is here, by the way, https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/504801169638567936), and while the first article is rather neutral in terms of point-of-view the Guardian article doesn't even bother pretending it's not libelous out of the gate; it paints the controversy as a harassment campaign with sources a-plenty for the bloggers who claim it as such, yet gave absolutely no coverage to the people actually working in said controversy. I don't believe for a minute that the Guardian's article consists of a neutral point-of-view on any planet; Wikipedia's staff can cover their ears and claim it's a verifiable source, but that doesn't make it a good source.

And, as mentioned in the headline, I don't think GamerGate is relevant to Baldwin's personal life whatsoever. GamerGate is an ongoing event and references to it in other articles should be kept out until the event is finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.90.86 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely that his GamerGate activities do not belong under the heading of personal life. Personal life covers the aspects of one's life traditionally kept out of the public eye. Political activism - or quasi-political activism - is the opposite of personal. The impact of such activism is only achieved by significantly publicizing it. I would suggest creating a new heading of "political activism," and including references to his GamerGate activities there. Given that Baldwin's continued relevance as a public figure seems to be predicated on his activism (and the controversies caused by such) rather than his acting, creating such a subsection would be warranted.

As far as refusing to mention Baldwin's GamerGate activities at all under the reasoning that it is an ongoing event, such a decision would set dangerous precedent. If Wikipedia's general policy is to refrain from mentioning a celebrity's involvement in a contemporary movement until such time as the outcome of that movement is fully crystallized, the encyclopedia would be severely crippled in its ability to present information. This is not a case where a late-breaking story prevents adequate substantiation of facts until the dust settles. Here, the history of the GamerGate movement, and Baldwin's contributions to it, are well understood and supported by multiple sources. Eggbake (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107100529/http://www.syfyportal.com/news.php?id=2895 to http://syfyportal.com/news.php?id=2895

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)