Jump to content

Talk:Alec Baldwin

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.188.153.50 (talk) at 19:05, 26 October 2021 (→Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2021: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Persona Non Grata

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

Seems like a distinctive story and worthy of mention.


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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

Style/semantic question on "accident"

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

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

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

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


The current version of the article states:

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

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

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

Negligent discharge of a prop gun resulting in involuntary manslaughter

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

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

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

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

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

The wikipedia article states:

"a prop firearm he was holding discharged"

But that's not what the three sources say.

This is what the three sources say:

"Alec Baldwin discharged prop gun"

"Alec Baldwin Fired Prop Gun"

"Alec Baldwin Misfires a Prop Gun"

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

This distinction is extremely important.

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

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

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

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

Prop Union

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

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

Add to Category:Manslaughter in the United States

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

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

Should the current incident be mentioned in the lead?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

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

An edit request needs to be a lot more specific than that. It should be change A to B or something like that. bop34 • talk • contribs 12:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2021

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alec_Baldwin&oldid=1051993119"