Talk:Charlie Sheen

Removed Hispanic Americans category

I removed the Hispanic Americans category since Martin Sheen's family is from Galicia, Spain and not Mexico, Central or South America. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic Today, it is commonly used interchangeably with Latino, which I think is different from Latin (referring to Spain, Italy, France, etc.). Since Spanish Americans is already a Category on the actor's page, I see no reason to keep it. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Referring readers to Hispanic doesn't bode well for your argument. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I read the reference and it says that "Hispanic" refers to ancestry in a Spanish-speaking country. That qualifies Spain and therefore Martin Sheen as Hispanic, doesn't it? 68.165.127.150 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Spanish Americans seems more precise anyway, so I'm not sure why we'd also need the "Hispanic American" category.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

But also note that Sheen is only one-quarter Spanish.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed redundant and misplaced paragraph

The following paragraph was in the section "Early life". The event in question is already covered further down in the article. Khim1 (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen was arrested on December 25, 2009 on three charges including domestic violence. However, the aggressor was his wife and he was simply defending himself--his wife admitted this to authorities. She also said the 9-1-1 phone call was a 'drunken phone call. His wife's BAC at the time was .14, while his alcohol level was a .04. His next court date is February 8th, 2009.

I haven't checked on this article in a while, but it still goes overboard on his personal life and underboard on his career. This Christmas incident doesn't help. We're not Tabloid Digest. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I DO NOT think this goes overboard on his personal life. To the contrary, we aren't talking about Sir John Gielgud here, we are talking about a guy who isn't a better actor than any waiter in town, and he is notorious for carousing with booze and whores. Sixty movies? Stop the man on the street and ask him to tell you what he knows about Charlie Sheen. He is guaranteed to use the terms "booze" and "whores", and when he is done, ask him to name all 60 movies. I'd bet my life he couldn't name five. This would be like an article about Keith Moon having 10x as much about music theory as it does about drunken antics, it wouldn't tell you who Keith Moon was and how he fits into the world. The first time in his life that he had any real success in something decent was with his present sitcom, in which he plays himself, er, a character named Charlie who spends his time carousing with booze and whores. That tells all you need to know about the man and his "acting" skills. Also, why does this article fail to mention that he is the highest paid actor on TV? I heard he makes half a million per episode.

To respond to your "man on the street" comment: Red Dawn, Platoon, Ferris Bueller' Day Off, Wall Street, Major League, Major League 2, Hot Shots!, Hot Shots Part Deux, Navy SEALS, Young Guns, The Three Musketeers, Being John Malkovich. Is that at least 5? I don't first think of "booze" and "whores" when I hear his name, I think of Two and a Half Men and how funny he is in that. He's been nominated for Screen Actors Guild, Golden Globes and Emmy Awards. Just because some of you out there are more interested in his sex life and his drinking doesn't mean everyone is. And for the record, it mentions on the article that he receives $825000 per episode. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the booze and whores statement...that's kind of his thing.220.233.30.72 (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Dec 25 Incident and BAC

I believe the blood alcohol levels of both parties is relevant to the section on his personal life regarding the December 25, 2009, incident. It appears Ms. Mueller was drunk, Mr. Sheen was not. It appears the police found his story more credible perhaps because of this. Further, it seems she's recanting, adding more credence. Sometimes (far more often than generally reported), the woman is the perpetrator (see Domestic abuse#Violence against men. --averagejoe (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reasoning. The source does not intimate that the police found Sheen's story more credible, they did charge him but not with an alcohol related offense of any kind, nor did they charge Mueller. It also does not contain that sort of interpretation, nor an interpretation of the legal definition of intoxication levels such as what were added to the sentence. Besides, "driving while intoxicated" levels does not reflect legal competency on either person's part, which is what the personal interpretation tends to reflect. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I also support this content inclusion. It is quite valuable, and tells a lot. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with inclusion. It is excessive detail to an absurd extent.Stetsonharry (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stetsonharry. If we report on the incident, we also need to report that there are doubts about the accusations. Overall, the incident does not seem to warrant inclusion in the article, especially if the accusations actually turn out to be unfounded or exagerrated. The BAC issue is not important, and interpretations attached to it are unencyclopedic. I suggest leaving the BAC issue out, but let's leave the other stuff in for the time being, until the issue being clarified.  Cs32en  20:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that she was almost twice the legal maximum level to drive is very relevant, ask Sheens lawyers if it is valuable content as regards her claims. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it's relevant to the court case, but I don't see it's pertinence to the article. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just all the story as it goes, we shouldn't just add the parts that make sheen look bad, a balance is better, it's only fair if you want to add story at all. It needs inclusion as she has mentioned it and as the complainant she is attempting to recant. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole section is imbalanced with tabloidy stuff like this. But I don't think adding blood alcohol levels helps a bit. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I, myself, have only read the news reports on the Internet and watched the snippets of the Access Hollywood-type shows (over dinner, seriously). I don't know what everyone else thinks, but I think the incident should be mentioned, but hold off on a lot of details due to a pending investigation. I haven't heard anything about the sworn statement by Brooke Mueller, so I can't comment on that yet. I only worry that this article will start suffering the same fate as I'm sure the Tiger Woods page is. As of right now, we need to be careful about what is posted about the incident. I don't know what the Wikipedia rules are in regards to scandals - be it for a celebrity, politician, etc. I think other editors commented in their edits about news reports. What is everyone's take on this? I'd like to know, so I know what to look for in edits and what to watch when I edit. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether she's recanted or not I don't know. However, enough folks seem to support the inclusion of this detail, and I've seen nothing to the contrary. I just reverted a removal of yet another editor posting the data in and included a reference. Find a credible reference to the contrary and it's worth continuing the discussion. Otherwise, I believe it should stay in until there is better/more specifics. Seems consensus leans in this direction, despite the tabloidiness of the entire incident. --averagejoe (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, neither party was charged with alcohol related offenses and sticking the sentence in at the end of the preceding paragraph is not helpful. If alcohol becomes a factor, then it can be included. As it is, the disparity in blood levels tends to imply that Sheen isn't the guilty party. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether charged or not, both parties provided specimens and results reported. Without this, the article implies that Sheen is the guilty party. Charged <> guilt. Either we include the relevant details, or we leave out the charge pending conviction. --averagejoe (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Brooke Mueller's lawyer on the sworn statement

According to TMZ, Brooke Mueller recanted her statement. According to her lawyer, she did not. Are we to judge which version is the correct one? However, there are clear reasons for claiming that Brooke Mueller would not have recanted the statement. The Canadian Press reports:

He [Brooke Mueller's lawyer] called it "a very interesting legal conundrum.... Events occurred. She gave a sworn statement to a law enforcement officer. She wants to work on her marriage and she wants to honour her legal obligations."
Asked if she would testify against her husband, Galanter said, "It's not going to come down to that." He declined to elaborate.

— Canadian Press, Lawyers: Charlie, Brooke Sheen want to reconcile, December 31, 2009

Brooke Mueller's lawyer, being involved in the case, is certainly not a more reliable source than TMZ. As this is a BLP article, if we include allegations such as these made by Brooke Mueller, we should report on the circumstances in which the accusations were made, and on subsequent events that allow the reader to assess the veracity of the statements.  Cs32en  03:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. As her lawyer he is a primary source on what she did or didn't do. -- Zsero (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't read that Canadian Press snippet as indicating if she did or did not recant. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources, not, or not primarily, on primary sources.  Cs32en  22:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite obvious what Brooke Mueller's lawyer is saying here: she cannot recant the sworn statement because that would cause legal troubles for her. It's actually quite possible that Brooke Mueller had said that she recants the statement, but after talking with her lawyer, she decided that this was not a good idea, given that it's a sworn statement. Also, we should take into account that he says that Brooke will probably not testify against Charly.  Cs32en  22:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

whitewash

I suggest an internal link from "whitewash" to Whitewash_(censorship). --82.171.70.54 (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for suggesting the edit!  Cs32en  22:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Any word on sources for reconciliation between Charlie Sheen and his wife?

I'm not going to add news from gossip sites, etc. I was just wondering if anyone received reliable information on a reconciliation between the couple. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole matter may turn out to be a tempest in a teapot. While it received sensational attention, it might not be worth much space in the article.   Will Beback  talk  05:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's sad that these scandals come and go so quickly; I mean, that so many happen to the same celebrity. By the way, that expression is adorable. I don't recall ever hearing someone say 'tempest in a teapot'. I have heard the phrase 'storm in a teacup', and I've lived in Texas all my life. I read on Wiki that 'storm in a teacup' is British. Funny how I have no memories of the American version (tempest in a teapot). I have cousins living in England, but never heard them use either expression. I must have picked up the British version from somewhere, maybe a book. Strange.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we REALLY need to note their blood alcohol levels? 203.100.208.156 (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, but there are some who do. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't, but I expect that there will be more news in reliable sources on the issue in February, and we can replace the questionable content then.  Cs32en Talk to me  07:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen was born in Mexico City????

Sheen was born Carlos Irwin Estévez in Mexico City.... that's what the article says, but I think it's a mistake... was born in NYC, doesn't it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.151.172 (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Was he born Estévez? The article says Estevez. I know some Americans of Hispanic descent drop accents (and/or tildes); but is this one of those cases, or is the article wrong? Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Convictions

The Personal life section states that his father reported him for violating his parole, yet it does not mention why he was on parole. What was he convicted of doing, where, and when? Jim Michael (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Spokesperson vs. spokesman

An editor, beginning with using an IP and then registered a username, has changed wording in the article from using the term "spokesperson" to "spokesman", and posted in an edit summary: "ade two corrections to incorrect usage of the English Language. E-Mail me at <address withheld> for any assistance with English, it's vagueries and grammatical interpretations. Effectively, he is saying that the use of "spokesperson" is grammatically incorrect. I posted a discussion at his talk page regarding the use of "spokesperson": "This word conforms to wording in our Manual of Style regarding gender-neutral language, which says "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." That page gives a link to Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language, which says "avoids constructions that might be interpreted by some readers as an unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes. Gender-neutral language does not inherently convey a particular viewpoint, political agenda or ideal." The use of "spokesperson" is a perfectly acceptable word used, in conformity to these guidelines, to substitute for "spokesman"." He did not respond at all, and instead reverted it. It seems it is time to form consensus that the Manual of Style will be followed in regard to such wording and it is my belief that changing this repeatedly, asserting it is improper grammar, is incorrect and basically pointy. This article should conform to MOS guidelines. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. Spokesperson is to be used in place of spokesman per MOS. I've been watching this too and I hope this editor will stop changing it now. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I am not even going to get involved in editing this article, I have enough on my plate. But, IMO you might as well change the section called " Personal life" to "Charlie's Whores and Booze." It reads like the Enquirer. Couldn't a lot of the undue weight of the adventures of Charlie be trimmed so that it reads like an encyclopedia? Just a thought. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Capri Anderson and Charlie Sheen scandal

Maybe it would be pertinent to state the name of Capri Anderson in the fews lines about their scandal that took place in the Plaza Hotel in New York last october, instead of refering her as "a woman locked in the bathroom of the room". Sources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1325085/Charlie-Sheen-Capri-Andersons-drunken-dinner-photos-end-career.html or http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/11/22/2010-11-22_capri_anderson_claims_charlie_sheen_threatened_to_kill_her_plans_to_file_lawsuit.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Variraptor (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Watch out for odd edits

A death rumour has started to do the rounds. It's almost certainly untrue, but we might see a round of edits trying to assert it, so watch out. Thanks. —Half Price 19:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already removed it a couple times from the talk page as a blatant hoax and not legitimate constructive material for the article. The rumor is sourced to an article from charlie.sheen.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/actor_skiing.php - which that domain is already blacklisted on Wikipedia. That site simply publishes fake "news" stories from the FakeAWish website. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Charlies first child

Hi ya`ll just was confused when i read the age of his daughter ummm if charlie was born in 1974 , then that means he was 10 when he had his daughter in 1984 :O , i know charlie sheen is crazy but i dont think he would have a kid at 10 years old...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.15.56 (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the article Charlie was born in 1965 not 1974. The only places I see 1974 is when discussing his career. That was when he was in his first movie. ~~ GB fan ~~ 23:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.62.14.130, 28 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Charlie Sheen died in Los Angeles, CA, January 27, 2011, due to heart failure as a result of a alleged cocaine overdose.

75.62.14.130 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Latest reliable source mentions "rushed to hospital" but none are yet reporting death. Please cite a RS for a change like this.  7  00:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Word usage: damage(s)

 Done Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"According to NYPD sources he caused more than $7,000 in damages to his room."

Should be "damage," not "damages." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.33.222 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Content related to temporary hospitalization

More views are needed to build consensus on whether to include content related to the recent hospitalization of Sheen. See these two edits for further information.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The events concerning Sheen's hospital emergency visit and then entry into rehab are noteworthy and relevant to his career, having even put the production of Two and a Half Men on hold while Sheen is in rehab. There is nothing undue about the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate Cs32en's concerns here, in general I agree with Bbb23. This content has been widely reported, and has had an immediate, direct, and severe impact on his career. The wording might be de-sensationalized a bit here and there, but it does appear that it's all true and verifiable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The deleted material about Sheen's recent hospitalization/rehab-stint/etc is notable news about the highest-paid star now on network TV in the US and I think should on the whole be put back into the article. Shearonink (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with bbb23.Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's worth including, but should be kept very short unless it turns out to be a bigger deal.   Will Beback  talk  04:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am Against including hospitalization for such a short time, especially since on drive back from hospital he was cracking jokes and telling war stories. Wikipedia is not an hour by hour spreadsheet of his life.
• I am Against including details of his sex life, that is not a newsworthy topic since the majority of single, famous rich men who arent impotent have sex.
• I am Against including drugs. Gossip websites say a briefcase of cocaine, but it was 20 grams which fits inside a walnut. Also 40 million people use drugs daily in USA, so that is also not newsworthy, unless he rode nude on a motorbike to work, died or had serious condition like liver failure or kidney failure or coma. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

+ News release said he will be back on show in 3 weeks, and none of the employees will be laid off or loose 1 paycheck. Police also refuse to charge him with any crime. Mr. Sheen enjoys partying, so if he lives to 80 and goes to hospital 5 times per year, should we have a 300 page Wikipedia article about his medical history and sexual habits? Monday July 22, Mr. Sheen fornicated with two blondes and went to hospital for a checkup that anonymous sources are calling an overdose.... Against. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a biography, and recurring illnesses are a part of one's life. The subject is a much of a public figure as there exists. While we don't want to be prurient, we shouldn't ignore widely reported events either. We just need to keep it down to its proper weight. We already report a similar incident from 2010. Maybe we could combine them, something like, "Sheen was hospitalized and entered rehab in 2010 and again in 2011." A bit more detail than that perhaps, but not much.   Will Beback  talk  08:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

He has been to rehab a lot more than just in the past 2 years. TMZ wasnt offering 20k to people for interviews back than. Thats besides the point. One sentence is enough. There is no need for separate pages: Charlie's Angels and Charlie's Rehabs. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with User:Will Beback that there is no need to document the most recent flameout in lurid detail; its existence should be noted briefly and succinctly and without sensationalism. And speculating on the potential effect on his career and his TV series would be plainly out of bounds in any article, let alone one needing to be watched for WP:BLP. Ford MF (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Personal Life section is already bloated in my opinion and could use some summarizing and improvement to the prose as it reads now like a collection of facts rather than a narrative. Regarding the current event on rehab, as we all know Wiki is an encyclopedia not a newspaper so, I would prefer it be combined with other rehab incidents in one sentence.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I've reinserted the 2011 material but shorter. I've also removed some content from other incidents to try to make everything briefer. It's tough because there are so many incidents.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Change the picture

Dear Admin,

I am a huge fan of Charlie Sheen however the picture on this page isn't one of his better pics, I request you to update the pic to a much newer version which I have uploaded - Charlie-sheen.jpg

Thank you Sindhi seth (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a link to this picture you say you uploaded.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ginger Lynn time conflict

This article says Charlie Sheen dated Ginger Lynn in the late '90s. The Ginger Lynn article says they dated from 1990 to 1992. Wickorama (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The important thing is are either or both of these statements sourced? Is so, what are they and are they reliable per WP:RELIABLE. We should follow the best sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the Sheen article with reliable sources. I reworded to conform to sources and to eliminate editorializing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

My Copy Edits Today

I made some copy edits today to remove off topic info and some minor POV. If any of my edits are controversial, I invite discussion here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think they're fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

• I think are a few sentences and phrases that are off topic and don't need to be in the article such as announcements by CBS concerning their show.
• There is a sentence in the Career section that discusses his entrance into rehab. This info is already in the Personal section and I think the entire sentence should be deleted.
• In summation of the above two points, I would say: how Sheen's behavior impacts his career is relevant to his BLP (with appropriate weight per sources) but how Sheen's behavior affects CBS and their Two and Half Men show (ie cancelled/haitus etc) does not belong in a Sheen bio. That may be a fine line and require specific examples (which I'm willing to provide) but I wanted to make the general point first and get feedback from other editors before I make further edits. Thanks for your help and participation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Career sentence can go. The sentence about CBS expressing support can go. I would favor leaving in the sentence where CBS announced a hiatus in the show - that, to me, is more relevant to Sheen. I don't really agree with your third bullet generally because Sheen is too intertwined with the show to not comment on things like cancellations and hiatuses. Other things like expressions of support are silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with Bbb23. The fact that the subject's condition affected his show, where he is the highest paid TV actor, is relevant. We just need to avoid overemphasizing this matter.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we are generally in agreement. I will make the two deletions discussed above and if I have more concerns, I'll post the specific sentences here for discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I don't mind the Sheen/2.5 Men connection but I don't know why we need to report on things CBS does. Here is a specific example:

1. This sentence I like: "In February 2010, Sheen announced that he would take a break from Two and a Half Men to voluntarily enter a rehab facility."
2. This sentence I don't like: "On January 28, Sheen voluntarily entered a rehabilitation center and CBS announced that Two and a Half Men would go into hiatus."

Sentence number two should be revised to read: [On January 28, Sheen voluntarily entered a rehabilitation center putting his show, Two and a Half Men, on hiatus.]Do you agree?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see any problem with the second sentence as is, but I don't feel strongly about it. If you want to change it, though, I would word it slightly differently and make sure you retain the cite in support of the hiatus (if there is one): "On January 28, Sheen voluntarily entered a rehabilitation center, putting Two and a Half Men on hiatus."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Only Problem I see with this is the almost daily tabloid reporting of his life that gets picked up by mainstream media. Mr. Sheen reported that he was also trying to get back and restart the show. CBS answered that they want him to get better. In 2 days Mr. Sheen will say XYZ... This seems like Western Union in 1890's reporting a global catastrophe. If people wish to read that Mr. Sheen's day-to-day activities, there are tabloid websites that are readily available. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, 23 days later, as I've suspected in the above post, Mr. Sheen's self-promotion over the past 100 days is taking over the article faster than the catchy phrases Mr. Sheen uses to promote himself. 'Warner Bros. dismissal' section mostly has nothing to do with the dismissal itself, just a re-caption of Warner Bros dismissal document written by 50+ lawyers, strangely written without legalese terminology. Basically Wikipedia is re-stating a press release from Warner Bros. At this rate we will have an article longer than history of mankind if Mr. Sheen's self-promotion continues for another year.

I have an idea. Lets have a section called 'Up to Date Monthly News'. each post must start with a format - March 11, 2011 11.03AM (PST) - Mr. Sheen danced on top of building X in response to WB letter singing tribal chant. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Today's events

I've added a mention of today's cancellation (for the season) of Two and a Half Men and the reason therefor, complete with sourcing to ABC News. Most reliable sources are highlighting Sheen's abuse of Lorre as the impetus for CBS's response so I've referred to the insults (but have not quoted them per BLP concerns). Feel free to edit if you think it's undue weight or, conversely, if I've been too conservative. --NellieBly (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In the long run, we will probably be changing the September 11 section to Conspiracy theories (or Cocaine-induced delusions... just kidding) and moving this there. It sounds as if he hates Lorre because he's been dipping pretty deep into Alex Jones' Kool Aid lately and believes in some kind of Jewish conspiracy. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 11:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind keeping your slander and rank stupidity to yourself? Seriously, do think the some 1449 professional architects & engineers at AE911Truth.org are on drugs too? Do you think they can be certain that World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) was controlled demolition, when anyone with a half-a-brain can figure it out in about 3 seconds by watching the video? Charlie may have some problems, but at least he has a clue about 9/11. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

24.11.186.64, we have a very clear policy on being WP:CIVIL on Wikipedia. Please review it. Comments such as "keep your stupidity to yourself" are not helpful in any way and your belief that 9/11 was an inside job do not belong on a talk page about Charlie Sheen. Thanks. DubiousIrony ^yell 06:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. The kind of people who suggest 11/9 was a conspiracy tend to either be the same kind of people who think drug laws are evil, or Muslims. Carl Kenner (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What's a BLP concern? Could we drop the acronyms? I transcribed the quote, since it's completely POV otherwise. I also split it into a "Recent Events" section. People are going to come to this article wanting to know what happened. Carl Kenner (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, the irony. BLP means Biographies of Living Persons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.38.55 (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

added info regarding October 26, 2010 incident

I added some info from the October incident with Charlie Sheen. An editor came in and reverted my edit claiming it was WP:UNDUE. This is clearly not the case. UNDUE is used when a source is representing a minority. My source is Fox News which is reliable and non trivial. The source is also stating facts regarding the incident and not a minority view. Also Wikipedia's foremost interest is stating factual reliable information. Removing such information requires discussion. Valoem ^talk 16:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Things can be undue if they are of minor importance with regard to the overall content in the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That is disputable, if no one disagrees with the removal of information then it can stay, but this detail does not impede the article in anyway, in fact it expands details regarding the incident. What is Wikipedia for if not for information?Valoem ^talk 17:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please revert your recent edit yourself. Your editing is not following WP:BRD, and constitutes edit-warring.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is a question of whether it's undue or not, but if it's really notable. Is it? I have my doubts. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Nymf _hideliho! 17:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate, Fox News is considered reliable. That citation is one sentence stating only facts. Notability of the citation should not be in question.

@ Cs32en: Any admin can see that there is no edit war involved here. Please act civil also my bold revert does stay unless notability or neutrality is violated. A third party user can revert that if obligated Valoem ^talk 17:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was decided a while ago that the stuff about porn star Jordan should not be in the article. Also, the source doesn't match the assertion. The sentence states that Sheen "admitted" - that's not true, Jordan alleged it. We shouldn't be reporting on accusations by others about Sheen. Although Fox may be a third-party source, they are simply reporting on what a primary source says. Moreover, the allegation is unnecessary to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Valoem: The issue isn't about reliability. It's about weight. Is this information important enough to include in this article? This is a judgment call, one in which editors of good faith can reasonably disagree on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's in part a judgment call, but it's also about BLPs and sources. I am wiling to accept that Fox is a reliable source in the sense that they are accurately reporting what Jordan alleges. However, that doesn't mean that Jordan's allegations are sufficiently reliable to be included in the article. It's a confusing intersection of third-party and primary sources and one that we have to exercise more care when it relates to controversial material being included in a BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am barely giving Jordon any weight. She has half a sentence stating she was there. There are hundreds of sources including this one from CBS [1] verifying this claim. In what way is this information not important enough for inclusion. One could argue that the whole incident should be removed then. Valoem ^talk 18:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Valoem: Yes, you could make that argument. This is why WP:WEIGHT issues can be difficult to resolve. One thing that I like to do is to perform the following thought experiment. Pretend that The Biography Channel is doing a documentary on Sheen. Are they likely to mention this? If the answer's yes, then it should probably be in the article. If the answer's no, then it probably shouldn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the Biography Channel may include a brief mention thus should be included in the article. How about you? That thought experiment is also very opinioniated. Honestly, I dont think any of these would make it to a biography special.Valoem ^talk 18:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside Quest's Biography Channel mechanism, I do not believe that the Jordon material should be included. You're going to have to find a real consensus for inclusion before reinserting it. And, even then, you may have a problem with WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPPRIMARY.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, somehow I was warned of edit warring by Cs32en when it is clear that nothing of such nature is happening. Regardless, I am completely willing to discuss this, if Jordon is not included we could just remove the whole incident any objections? Valoem ^talk 18:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is nothing wrong with the rest of the material, which essentially consists of information sourced to the hotel, the police, and Sheen himself. It's only the Jordon material that is controversial.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Valoem: I don't know enough about this actor to be able to offer an opinion. I will say, however, that the article gives a disproportionate amount of coverage to his political views and personal life. Sheen is not famous because of his politics or personal life. He's famous for being an actor. More emphasis should be given to his career and his thoughts on acting. There are, for example, 13 words devoted his role in Platoon and 131 words to his views on 9/11. That's insane. Is there anyone who seriously believes that his views on 9/11 is ten times more important than his role in Platoon? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

QFT, I complete agree that the details in the article need reworking, how is it that so much trivia was written yet when I write one thing on Jordan, suddenly everyone disagrees? Valoem ^talk 19:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the drugs and other issues. What is the violation of adding information about who Sheen was with? Why is certain information not approiate to the article and others are. No clear explaination has been given. Valoem ^talk 19:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look a the discussion on this talk page and its archives. In this case, I would argue that the whole episode is rather irrelevant, but the rehab at least resulted in a pause in the production of the TV series. Sheen's party and it's attendees have not had any effect on Sheen's professional or public life, thus it should not be in this article.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I can't be any clearer without going in circles. Maybe other editors will chime in with their views. As for Quest's point, I disagree with respect to Sheen's personal life, which has significantly impacted his career and is therefore intertwined with his occupation as an actor. I've used this analogy before, but it's a little like not reporting on Judy Garland's personal problems not to report on Sheen's (even though I don't put them in the same class :-) ). As for Sheen's political views, I'll reserve judgment on that one because I don't have the time to really look at it at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking a look at the last GA reassessment, part of the reason why it was delisted was because, "Article has serious neutrality issue, in that it far overemphasizes personal life and political positions over career." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, that's that editor's opinion in 2009. Again, putting politics aside, Sheen has demonstrated that his personal life has become his career. It's sad but true, and Wikipedia can only report on what's true. In another article about another actor, giving too much emphasis to personal woes might indeed be irrelevant, but not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that was the opinion of 4 editors (Stetsonharry, Cs32en, Collectonian and decltype) and it's probably what Music26/11 meant by "cruft". And you can add me to the list. I actually surprised you honestly think that a 30-year acting career should be overshadowed by recent events. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(smile) Okay, I'll add you to the list. But just so we're clear, Sheen's problems have been reported for many years. They've just increased in intensity in the last year. In the spirit of compromise, though, one possibility is to report on all the incidents but in one paragraph that lists all the dates and includes all the cites, but gives few details as to each incident. Something like "he had various problems with substance abuse, charges of domestic violence, offensive statements in the media, some of which resulted in hiatuses of his show" - I just tossed that off, it would have to be carefully worded, of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are two ways to fix a weight issue. One way is to expand the career section and the other is trim the personal life and political positions (or some combination of the two). I haven't followed the article the last couple days so I'm not sure what the current state is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm more familiar with him in the news than his acting career, but I do think it wouldn't be too difficult to beef up his professional section. As per Quest, I took a look at his Personal Life section to look at what to trim, and found it difficult to suggest anything beyond taking a look at whether his biography really warrants a blow-by-blow account of every news story involving him in the past three years (though I don't want to whitewash the fact that his personal life has been rather, shall we say, troubled as of late). I do think that some of the stuff there relating to the cancellation of Two and a Half Men relates more to his acting career and could go there accordingly. Kansan (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Source for Apocalypse Now

There's a "citation needed" tag on Apocalypse Now. I tried finding a source, and found this.[2] I was hoping for something more substantial, but that was the best I could find. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would favor removing the entry completely. His "performance" as an extra doesn't warrant inclusion in the table.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. But perhaps we should create a second article for his filmography? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Net Worth

This should be in the info box. Obviously the guy has serious fuck you money. Get-em Charlie! 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Asher196 for not forcing me to use my named identity. Here is one source. See Thomas Friedman for an instance of the use of the infobox item. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Also the user that removed this thread is probably unaware that 1) "fuck you money" is a standard American idiom and 2) deletion of commentary which is generally on-topic and germane to the development of the article is very very wrong/contrary to what wiki is all about. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to hide? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No way it's standard idiom. It's simply a descriptive vulgarity. Its use would only be for shock value, using it here simply means you couldn't phrase it more eloquently. 75.95.47.110 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to conflate the use of IP editing, a hallmark of wiki, with "hiding"? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibility of Sheen having bipolar disorder

I recognize that this is preemptive, but honestly I just want to get ahead of any fanbase denial (if he is diagnosed officially) or inaccuracies/mockery about the disorder by the same in any case. ABC News has an interview with him where the reporter raises the possibility, and in the nightly news segment (evening 2/28 GMT -8) there were consults with psychiatrists (who haven't examined him or seen his medical file, granted) who nevertheless say the interview footage reveals classic manic symptoms. So, please, dedicated editors, IF something concrete comes forward, it would be NPOV for there NOT to be Sheen's/his fans' disparagement of bipolar disorder in the narrative part of the article. And the official diagnosis, when/if it comes from licensed M.D. psychiatrists, should obviously be the primary source.

Thank you. 75.57.7.223 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Did Charlie Sheen actually "shoot" Kelly Preston? Looks like "no"

The article states, " In 1990, Sheen accidentally shot his then-fiancee, Kelly Preston,[29] in the arm, after which she ended the relationship.[30]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Sheen#cite_ref-girls_28-0). This seems to be several levels away from anything verifiable.

Yes, more recent articles go with the story that's been spun over the years, that he shot her and she broke up with him over it. But if you look up articles from when that actually happened, you'll find a very, very different story.

"Actor Charlie Sheen wants to clear up the ``sick and twisted distortions he's read about how his fiancee, Kelly Preston, was shot in their apartment earlier this year.

'One night we thought we had prowlers; the burglar alarm went off, and I put my .22 in the pocket of my pants. It turned out to be nothing,' Sheen said recently. 'I forgot about the gun, left my pants in the bathroom, and the next evening, Kelly was moving my clothes when the pistol went off. A bullet hit the toilet, and shrapnel hit Kelly's ankle and wrist.'" (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900218&slug=1056805)

Yes, that's just hearsay from Sheen, but I don't find any other evidence or even comments from anyone else to contradict it. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=RM&p_theme=rm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB4D4D1A2027267&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM seems like it could have some more details, but it's behind a paywall. The treatment Preston received seems to support this story, as she only needed two stitches (http://www.imdb.com/news/ni1345729/). With this statement being the only thing we have to go on, and absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise, I don't think it's truthful to say that "Sheen accidentally shot [...] Kelly Preston". Yes, he had some responsibility, but he didn't shoot her, nor was she even shot. The only part of that story that's true is that she was the one who was injured. 33% is not a good accuracy standard, in my opinion.

The following statement, that "she ended the relationship", though, is definitely untrue. In another old story from The Spokesman Review in 1990 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sKgpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gvADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6722,103442&dq=charlie-sheen+kelly-preston&hl=en) you'll find that Sheen was the one to call off the engagement. We know this because she that's the reason she got to keep his $200,000 engagement ring. If that small newspaper isn't a strong enough source, this story was also carried by the Philadelphia Enquirer and the Chicago Tribune, though behind paywalls. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22charlie+sheen%22+%22kelly+preston%22+detectives&bav=on.1,or.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nw#q=%22charlie+sheen%22+%22kelly+preston%22+%22big+bucks%22&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=9XlsTazXKYP_8AbG6c2SBQ&ved=0CA8QpwUoBQ&bav=on.1,or.&fp=4108eed1f2742a34) A People article from 1991 (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20114264,00.html) supports this story, mentioning that Preston wound up with the ring even though Sheen would have preferred to retrieve it, though it doesn't explicitly say it's because he called the wedding off.

So, yes, even though many normally reputable websites claim that he shot her, if you carefully examine them, you'll find it's only more recent websites that have bought into the legend and haven't done their research, and they give no references or justifications for the claim. It's basically an urban myth. I think these resources justify a change to that section, especially since it colors everything else on the site. Much of the idea of Sheen as a controversial figure is backed up by the claim that he shot his girlfriend, when that doesn't actually seem to be the case. This is my first time really getting into a wikipedia article on a talk page, so I hope I did a decent job making reasonable points. Thanks for reading. L3reak (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your research on this point. This is just the kind of text that needs extra care in a BLP. Based on the info given above I would say the existing sentences needs some significant editing so that it reflects the most reliable sources and errs on the side of caution and neutrality.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

According to a contemporaneous account in the Orange County Register, Sheen admitted to the accidental shooting.

• Charlie Sheen is upset that word leaked out to the tabloids about the gunshot wound suffered by fiancee Kelly Preston early this month. "We were assured by detectives covering the case that the report wouldn't be accessible to reporters," he said. "They marked the file `not to be seen by the press.' "Here is the truth; people can read my quotes and know that anything else they hear about the incident is a crock," Charilie said. "One night we thought we had prowlers; the burlgar alarm in the apartment went off and I put my .22 in the pocket of my pants when I went to check it out. It turned out to be nothing. I forgot about the gun, left my pants in the bathroom, and the next evening Kelly was moving my clothes when the pistol went off. A bullet hit the toilet and shrapnel hit Kelly's ankle and wrist. . . . She was taken to St. John's Hospital; three stitches were needed -- and she was released two hours later. She was back at work -- making a `Tales of the Crypt' for HBO -- three days later. And that was the end of that. Until the tabloids started sniffing around. They'd like people to believe I shot Kelly, or she deliberately shot herself. It was an accident!"
  • Charlie Sheen mad at tabloids for running story on shooting; [EVENING Edition] Marilyn Beck:The Register. Orange County Register. Santa Ana, Calif.: Jan 18, 1990. pg. K.04

The text currently in the article says:

• In 1990, Sheen accidentally shot his fiancee Kelly Preston[31] in the arm.

It previously said:

• In 1990, Sheen accidentally shot his then-fiancee, Kelly Preston,[29] in the arm, after which she ended the relationship.[30]

There's no question that the engagement ended following the accidental shooting. Additional sources also make that assertion. I'm going to restore that version.   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

But, what I'm saying is that Kelly Preston did not end the relationship. Sheen did. See: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sKgpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gvADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6722,103442&dq=charlie-sheen+kelly-preston&hl=en (scroll down to the highlighted section) or the other links I provided as resources. I don't know much about Wikipedia standards, but how would this work:

• In 1990, Sheen accidentally shot his then-fiancee, Kelly Preston, in the arm, after which Sheen ended the relationship.

With the appropriate references, of course. That's not even addressing the gunshot incident, in which Sheen did not shoot Preston, but she instead accidentally shot herself, but we can discuss that separately. L3reak (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that a short mention in a gossip column is definitive. It could have been placed by his publicist. I did find a (slightly better) source that says Sheen sold the ring and bought a condo in Hawaii with the proceeds, so apparently he got the ring back eventually. Rather than going into greater detail about this matter, I suggest we go with the blameless passive voice. "The engagement ended soon after", or something like that. How does that sound?   Will Beback  talk  11:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. L3reak (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to mention, but they have both recently said that he didn't shoot her: http://www.tmz.com/2011/05/03/charlie-sheen-kelly-preston-gun-shot-shoot-arm-story-1990-one-man-show-violent-torpedo-of-truth-fiance/ http://www.tmz.com/2011/05/06/kelly-preston-charlie-sheen-shooting-gun-mr-chow-john-travolta/ 173.15.37.101 (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

5.6.11. Both Charlie Sheen and Kelly Preston have said the gun was in his pocket, fell out and accidentally went off. Kelly Preston in a TMZ "Celebrity Justice" Video on http://www.tmz.com and Charlie Sheen in a Video on http://www.tmz.com/videos. Xdenadollx (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC) xdenadollx

drug test

Charlie sheen took a drug test on February 27th 2011 on national television and it came back negative to approximatively 10 drugs.Tyjeffreys (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)tyjeffreys

To be neutral, if we report the drug tests he passed then it'd be logical to report the ones he failed or otherwise discuss further why his drug tests were so noteworthy. Do we really want to go down that path?   Will Beback  talk  06:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This whole media storm about Chuck Lorre, the stuff Sheen's said thats been on TMZ and on CBS, the whole way this media blitz has snowballed just over the last few days, it needs to be documented and posted up here. I mean it was big enough to knock Libya off the front pages! Theres so much on this just now that it needs to be looked at as a media campaign by Sheen and posted on here as just that. He's been around all the houses saying he wants to go to work, he's done the drug tests to prove he's sober and clean and he's got some weirdo friends like Alex Jones, who's show he was on when this broke I think? Since then its just been Charlie Sheen city in the media....what does one do? --Omar418 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the recent events need some coverage. But it should be balanced.   Will Beback  talk  06:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The introduction paragraph is heavily biased referring to "reports of" "drug abuse and marital problems" with no citations. Where is your citation for your claimed "failed drug tests". This wikipedia page is just as much a smear campaign like the current media spree. If you were actually balanced you wouldn't note "reports of"... I could go write an article that their where "reports of" you eating babies and it doesn't mean shit. Write about some factual information for a change. superstructor 2 March 2011

Your concerns are appreciated, superstructor. You are correct in saying that all WP:BLP (biography of living persons) material must be sourced, contentious material doubly so. Wikipedia has a very strong policy on this matter. In short, it reads "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". The information you are referring to is in the WP:LEAD section and as such is a summary of the rest of the article. You will find more information on the allegations of drug use and marital problems under the section titled Personal Life. As you can see, all the information there is sourced. If you find any disparaging, contentious statements that are not sourced I welcome you to remove them yourself let us know on the talk page using the edit semi-protected template. If your proposed change is in line with Wikipedia guidelines (WP:5P) an auto-confirmed user will make the change. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia! DubiousIrony ^yell 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Graduation and expulsion at a young age??

A few weeks before graduation, Sheen was expelled from the school for poor grades and bad attendance. Deciding to become an actor he picked up his stage name and appeared in his first role at age nine in his father’s 1974 film The Execution of Private Slovik.[5][6]

-This is just pathetic. Suggest deletion or real re-write. Msjayhawk (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue you have with that paragraph? It reads fine to me. DubiousIrony ^yell 14:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the above sentences are very poorly written and confusing and need to be rewritten, while staying true to the sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So he was about to graduate (people assume high school), but then he got expelled, and became 9 years old, and decided to become an actor??? Msjayhawk (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yea, he owns a time machine.  :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Highest paid actor on television?

"Although he is already the highest paid actor on television, Sheen demanded 3 million dollars per episode, claiming that in comparison to the amount that the series is making he is "underpaid"."

I tried to find a citation for him being the highest paid actor in television, and I found something from 2008, but nothing more recent (I found some about him being among the highest paid, that being said). This sentence seems constructed in a way that doesn't seem particularly neutral, too. I'm going to go ahead and remove the first clause from the sentence. As this is likely to be a high traffic BLP article in the next few days, I feel we need to err on the side of caution. Kansan (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC) As an aside, the statement currently is sourced, but the article says "reportedly" the highest paid actor. I'm not sure that's good enough, thus my comment here. Kansan (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Disregard my earlier comments. I ended up finding a citation, although I still think the wording of the personal life section needs work. Kansan (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Awards and honors section???

Is it necessary to have an "Award and honors" section? It's only like a small paragraph. In my opinion it should be worked into his "Career" section! Tell me if you agree?--Anen87 (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a standard section in biographies of entertainers.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please remove the Ad.ly ad?

{{Edit semi-protected}} The last sentence in the career section is nothing but an ad for Ad.ly. Can one of the admins please remove it while the page is protected. Objix (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

why? isn't that a job? if he's going to earn money through his image and celebrety status then it belongs under career besides it has credidable sources: Los Angeles Times and The Hollywood Reporter.--Anen87 (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Brittany Ashland

How come there is no mention that he dated Brittany Ashland or that Sheen plead "no contest" to the criminal charges of assault on her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.83.45 (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Bree Olson just moved out

So the sentence about her needs to be revised 68.174.97.202 (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Charitable Activities - Sheen Kidz?

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to actually make an edit, but I thought this was a pretty glaring error:

How is Sheen Kidz, Charlie Sheen's clothing line for kids, a "Charitable Activity"? I know it's a small detail compared to the rest of the things happening in regards to the subject of Charlie Sheen, but I figured somebody should still be made aware. 24.11.222.40 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked their website and it doesn't make any mention of charitable activity.[3] It appears to be a straightforward for-profit business. I'll move it to the "career" section.   Will Beback  talk  00:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen says he is Jewish because his mother is Jewish

I added the categories Category:Jewish_entertainers and Category:Jewish_actors but they were removed by Asher196 and then by Bbb23. Bbb23 wrote 'his "self-identification" is not enough to satisfy WP:BLPCAT' but here is a 3rd party source saying the same thing - Washington Jewish Week contains the following quote: "It's worth noting that Sheen, the brother of actor Emilio Estevez, is the son of a Jewish woman named Janet Templeton." Jew and a half men? Babylonian (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on WP:BLPCAT, Sheen must "publicly self-identif[y] with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... [must be] relevant to their notable activities or public life." The fact that Sheen is the son of a Jewish mother makes him Jewish per Jewish law, but it doesn't mean he self-identifies as a Jew or that his supposed Jewishness is relevant to his public life. His supposed self-identification was a tepid statement in defense of charges of anti-semitism. His supposed Jewishness is similarly relevant to his public life for the same reason. It's ludicrous - and probably offensive to some - to categorize him as a Jewish actor or entertainer or anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen says he’s Jewish and proud This article is evidence of him publicly self-identifying as a Jewish person. The fact that he self-identified publicly as a Jew is relevant to his "notable activities" and his "public life" - namely all the news coverage over his feud with his producer that is going on right now and the subsequent accusations against him of anti-semitism. Whether some people find that offensive or not is not listed as a relevant criteria in WP:BLPCAT or am I missing that part ?Babylonian (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

He says his mother is Jewish "So I guess that would make me Jewish." And when prodded by the interviewer ("You’re getting accused of anti-Semitic remarks -- you might want to say, 'By the way, I’m Jewish!'"), Sheen responds: "I know, I know -- stupid me. I just got caught sleeping, caught napping, which is rare for me. Anywho ... But I’m proud of it. There you have it." What a remarkable self-identification. And if public self-identification automatically equated to satisfying the relevance to notability requirement, then the second requirement would be redundant. Sheen's supposed Jewishness is not relevant to his career as an actor. It's relevant to his latest career as an interviewee making accusations and then defending against them. Does this kind of stuff belong in his article? Maybe some of it belongs in the body, but it doesn't justify categorizing him as a Jewish whatever.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You can go down the list of people who are currently listed under the category of Category:Jewish actors and there are no shortage of cases where their Jewishness is not any more relevant to their career as an actor than it is in the case of Charlie Sheen. For example: Jack_Black, Peter_Coyote, Daniel_Day-Lewis, Jake_Gyllenhaal, Scarlett_Johansson, River_Phoenix or Judd_Nelson to name a few. You named the relevant criteria as that he must "publicly self-identif[y] with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... [must be] relevant to their notable activities or public life." Sheen did publicly self-identify with the belief in question and his Jewishness is relevant to his notable activities at least as much as those of Jack Black, Peter Coyote, Daniel Day-Lewis, Jake Gyllenhaal, Scarlett Johansson, River Phoenix or Judd Nelson if not more so. If this does not justify categorizing him as a Jewish actor then what justifies categorizing any of the examples I listed or the 777 entries in the list Category:Jewish actors ? What is specifically Jewish about the careers of any of those people I listed ? It seems to me that trying to exclude Charlie Sheen from that list is something less than NPOV.Babylonian (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Categorization is a major problem at Wikipedia, and your examples highlight the problem (although I haven't taken the trouble to examine them all). Just because people are categorized who shouldn't be doesn't mean that your categorization of Sheen is acceptable. Multiple errors do not make something correct. That said, I think we've both probably had an opportunity to comment on this subject. Why don't we wait to see what other editors say so we can reach a consensus on the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point we need something more than Charlie Sheen's statement to verify that Templeton was Jewish. Rmhermen (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that adding him would be a miscatagorisation. His mother being Jewish doesn't make him Jewish by anything other than Jewish religious tradition. He doesn't live like a Jew as far as going to temple, following tradition or following Jewish law (i.e. abstaining from drugs, promiscuous sex, polygamy, etc.). Rather, I think it's apparent this recent claim of Judaism is him trying to backtrack what was perceived as antisemitism (which, btw is up in the air, he talks so crazy that it's impossible to really understand what he's trying to say half the time!).

As far as the list of other actors being in there when they're no more "Jewish" than Sheen, well, like the other editor said: they probably shouldn't be in there either. Noformation (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC

[Washington Jewish Week] states as fact that Sheen's mother is Jewish: "It's worth noting that Sheen, the brother of actor Emilio Estevez, is the son of a Jewish woman named Janet Templeton."Babylonian (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on the context of the WJW article, it's not clear whether they are independently stating that Templeton was Jewish or whether they got that from the interview with Sheen (which is really the subject of the article).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The WJW page says, "-- compiled from reports filed by JTA News and Features, The Jerusalem Post and other sources". I think we should be able to find a better source for Templeton's religious or ethnic background.   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

HEY! this article Charlie Sheen says he’s Jewish and proud also states the following “My mom [actress Janet Templeton] is Jewish. Here’s where it gets confusing -- we don’t know who her father was." so that means her mom is half jewish not full Jewish!!! therefore he's only 1/4 Jewish by ethnicity!!! Obviously by religion-wise he ain't Jewish. "Jewish actor" labels on Wikipedia are some of the categories that confuses me. Though, I think He CAN be categorized as: "American people of Jewish descent" if such category exist I think that would make more sense.--Anen87 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

According to some Jews, a person born of a Jewish mother is Jewish. Pursuant to that doctrine, if Templeton is Jewish, then Sheen is Jewish. As for Templeton (putting aside conversion), if her mother was Jewish, then she was Jewish, irrespective of her father's religion. As for your confusion about Jewish categories on Wikipedia, it's perfectly understandable because it's a mess. The BLPCAT definition pertains to religion. Some people may consider themselves Jewish by ethnicity, but not by religion. Thus, whether BLPCAT applies to Jewish BLPs is hotly and, I might add, endlessly debated. I've participated in some of these discussions, and it usually leaves me feeling completely drained, but that's part of the wondrous world of Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to stress again that he only claimed to be Jewish after being accused of antisemitism. It's another version of the whole "I can't be racist because I have a black friend" argument.Noformation (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your logic is weak. You should have said 'I can't be racist because I have a friend who is black and so am I.' His mother is Jewish, and thats good enough for Israel to instantly give him a passport, recognizing him as a bona fide member of the Jewish Religion. Noformation, try to see that the no-formation of arguments is not fun. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I've heard jews say that. But I always thought it was a religion-culture thing! but as a "race"/ethnicity? hugh? pretty confusing stuff if jewish women are not marrying jew men then the actual Jewish gene gets pretty lost! The jewish men don't really matter then! Why should she marry a jewish man? (enter ex-wife Muller as an example) as long as she is "jewish" the kids are "jewish" right? that can go on for generations and generations?!?!? Templeton is not a jewish name But now that I think about it she may not even be ethnically half jewish either. I believe that's why he never stated his mother's ethnicity before cause she was sooo ethnically mixed that it was so confusing! But talking about religion clearly Sheen is Not Jewish there's nothing in his bio that states he had a Bar Mitzvah his "jewish mom" did not raise him jewish religion-wise. FYI Hitler is said to have been ethnically Jewish DNA tests reveal 'Hitler was descended from the Jews and Africans he hated'. So it was a Jew who killed Jews??? Of course this is my point to carefully label someone jewish. Note Sheen's "Jewish & proud" after what? 45 years passed? and we barely hear about this now! when? when he's accused of anti-semitism!!!--Anen87 (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no Jewish race. Only Nazis believe that BS. --78.104.63.100 (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There's the state Israil, where jews are living. go to Israil and say to people uot there, that they are not exist. also, you nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.190.156 (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Having a Jewish Mother to be considered Jewish is not about DNA. Jews recognize that its the mother who brought up children throughout history. So if the father is Jewish and the mother is not, the child will follow his mother and most likely abandon the faith. Yet if the mother is Jewish, she will teach the child all the traditions, prayers, etc.. Nobody ever accused the followers of the Jewish Religion of being stupid. Religion, not Race. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not relevant if Wikipedia has a standard that Mr. Charlie Sheen must climb to the top of Mount Sinai and proclaim that he is of the Jewish Religion. If his mother, and her mother were Jewish, than so is Charlie Sheen according to 2500+ year old religious laws that are still followed today. So according to the Jewish tradition, carried on since the time before Rome was even a fishing village, and Achilles was still learning how to walk, Mr. Charlie Sheen is considered Jewish by Jews themselves. Whether in the past 25 years that definition has changed, we must consider the 2500+ years of precedent as well. Since he did not convert or publicly state he abandons Judaism, he must be considered Jewish. Being Jewish is not an equivalent of being a leper, or Typhoid Marry, so I don't see the difficulty here. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You're oversimplifying the problem. First, it is not whether he is in fact Jewish but whether he self-identifies as Jewish. Just because someone is born Jewish doesn't mean they consider themselves to be Jewish. Second, we have no reliable source in support of Templeton being Jewish. There are other issues, but that'll do for now.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct Bbb23, yet writing on an application form that your eyes are blue because you chose to forget you are wearing blue contact lenses doesn't mean much. If his mother is indeed Jewish, he will be welcomed as he has been, if not, there are reporters now who would convert to paganism to break an exclusive story that he pretended his mother is Jewish to avoid sounding anti-semitic. Personally I care more that this article is becoming a den of misinformation and tabloid gossip than about Sheen's views of himself. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Mother was Southern Baptist NOT Jewish!!!

Originally published April 7, 2010. Emilio Estevez was on The Busted Halo Show with Fr. Dave and said his mother was Southern Baptist go to the Part 2 video around the @5:05 mark! So that means Charlie Sheen was Lying about his mom being Jewish! Unless you want to believe that Emilio was lying to a priest!--Anen87 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Then either Charlie's statements should be removed or this should be added or people are gonna get confused. As far as I can see it, looking at the big picture (ie: how relevant the statement is possibly gonna be in the future) and the templates asking for people not to be slanted towards recent events, this should be deleted. --186.82.60.241 (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we don't decide who's right in this kind of situation. We can include both statements and let readers decide which son has more credibility.   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Either way, please refer to Talk:Charlie Sheen#Edit_request. --186.82.60.241 (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Also see this. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that both brothers could be right; their mother could very well simultaneously be a practicing Baptist and be of Jewish descent. I'm not saying we shouldn't take Charlie's words without a grain of salt, but the case is still open so far as I'm concerned. --150.212.62.98 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

jewish as an ancestry then? He would be 1/4 jewish (given that sheen stated they don't know his mother's father). Either way that doesn't make him a "Jewish actor" since that was the root of this whole discussion. I believe a "jewish actor" would be having ancestry and be practicing the Jewish religion. Though i think it would be better to say "american people of jewsih descent" in his case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.240.149 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone! Look at the second link on this section it is a thorough background check which shows no jewish ancestry at all. He isnt jewish or of jewish descent and that is the end of the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.141.133.244 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not he is Jewish, or "self-identifies" as Jewish, or "is generally considered" to be Jewish makes no difference as regards his alleged anti-semitism. Being Jewish does not exempt you from being anti-semitic. Growing up Jewish, I've had the misfortune of knowing many "self-identifying" Jews who have absolutely vitriolic attitudes toward Jews, and there are plenty of people whose mothers were Jewish but who, as adults, are practicing members of other religions and vocal about their socrn and hatred for Judaism and Jews. Claiming "I'm Jewish, so I can't be anti-semitic" is disingenuous at best. 69.171.176.5 (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

General Article Edits 3/2011

I've been looking at the sources and there is so much misinformation in this article with useless references that have nothing to do with the quotes supported by them, that it amazes me. I had to go back to 1998 news archives to get the real story behind his 1998 overdose. He snorted cocaine while on probation and overdosed. The 'injection of cocaine' bit magically appeared in the news in the past 1.5 years. He didn't have any arrest warrants out for him either. There are reputable news sources that don't delete content after 1 month and i used them. After some joker a year or two ago posted on Wikipedia that he overdosed after 'injecting 2 syringes of cocaine in 1998', every news outlet reported it as if its a fact, too lazy to check the source. I am not even near the current disruption to the article. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone wrote Mr. Sheen can't own a firearm for the rest of his life; which is untrue since he was never convicted of a violent felony. Source used never mentions a lifetime ban on firearms. Now internet ablaze due to lazy journalists quoting Wikipedia, that Mr. Sheen has illegal guns due to his recent statements. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The "injection" assertion was added here.[4] There were citations to this Telegraph article: Telegraph - How Charlie Sheen saw the light, from 2004. It's no longer at that link though.   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Telegraph interview article is now here. It's actually quite interesting.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As for the gun stuff, part of the problem was the citation was completely wrong - pointed to some other article that had nothing to with the Aspen plea. I've corrected that. The source article says: "He also said that the plea carries several long-term consequences that include Sheen not being able to possess firearms." I'm not certain what that means because there's not enough detail, i.e., how long does this prohibition last, does it pertain only to Colorado? I wouldn't want to cite to it without more information. As for Meishern's broad assertion that prohibitions against owning firearms only happens when one is convicted of a violent felony, I wonder if he has looked at the laws of every state in America, not to mention federal law, to be able to support such a statement.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent finds! Thank you. Bbb23, great refs, and i am going through the rest of them, since it seems all the world's media is focused on this person for the next moment, and I want to make sure Wikipedia doesn't get a black eye over undocumented statements. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested, Calif. Penal Code section 12021(a)(1) states: "Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country ... or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony." Note that there is no mention of "violent" felony. In another provision, even if you are convicted of various misdemeanors, you are prohibited from having firearms for 10 years.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Was Charlie Sheen convicted of a felony? I thought they were all plead down. That phrase 'or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug' is very subjective because 'addicted' needs to have benchmarks to give that word any legal meaning. I am not sure how that alleged gun prohibition works either. There is no way that a state judge in Colorado could have jurisdiction over California. Feds will only get involved in a felony as far as I know. I am not an attorney so I cant competently debate this issue. hehehe. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A sentence needs a new home. Starts with: 'He has a tattoo that reads "Death From Above"'. If people feel his tattoos need a section, then since if we talk about 1, why not all? I am open to ideas, but where it's now, it just sounds awkward during reading. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I added tattoo subsection under personal, since that 1 paragraph about 1 tattoo was lonely as he has 11+ tattoos. I also moved Bree to the Warner Section, since its all part of the same story line, and Mr. Sheen's wifes and children take up residence in the Personal section. We should expand sentence "throughout the 1990s he dated adult... and now change it to "throughout 1990's, 2000s and 2010s he dated adult...". Also Bree Olson no longer lives there for a number of days. Must we report her replacement as well? and the replacement's replacement...... Cheers! Meishern (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Now we will take that humongous Warner section, and compile it into a nice 5-7 line paragraph or two. Lets think in terms of years not hours or days. Charlie Sheen was the star of Platoon and Wall Street,a permanent fixture on Best Movie lists, and there are 5 words in total about those movies. Is there consensus to compact the Warner Bro. section? Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a tattoo really needs any space. However, a very public dispute, which has at least momentarily been the center of attention, does deserve significant space. It may be a little too soon to know how much weight to devote to different aspects of the subject's career and life. We might not know for sure for another decade or two. Some people, like Marilyn Monroe, are as significant for their lives as for their work. In general, when there's a question of relative weight it's often a matter of adding more attention to one issue rather than removing material from another. We can say a lot about the subject's personal problems. How much can we say about his star performances? More, I'm sure, but inevitably much of that is better placed in the articles about the movies. Which leaves this article mostly focused on his personal life. Let's working on finding the right balance here, with careful attention to WP:BLP.   Will Beback  talk  08:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the tattoo section. It has no business being in the article. If there's a consensus to put it back, fine, but it's truly silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont care either way. I put it in because there were 4 sentences about 1 tattoo; so might as well list them all in 3 sentences. However a few words may be of use especially because he enjoys showing them off; makeup has to be used and camera angles adjusted to cover them up in movies. I won't put it back in, but if one is mentioned, so should they all. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Survey question

Ummmm..Im mathew.....i used to like charlie but now i dont anyway i was looking at the page and in the bottom of one of the articles on thsi wiki site it say 71% of americans say sumthin and 13 make sumthin else. What are teh real results because thatonly makes like 83 or something so fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.253.194 (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The figures don't have to add up to 100%. It could be that some percentage of those polled didn't have an opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Mathew, I still like Charlie. Don't judge people too harsh, nobody's perfect. He just having fun his own way, and thats what freedom in America is all about. He's not robbing, hurting or killing anyone; just having a laugh. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I was formatting the line about the poll when I noticed the percentages didn't work out. I think the survey is bogus and shouldn't be in the article in the first place. After doing a little research on Rasmussen Reports, the company behind the survey, I think they should probably be banned from Wikipedia entirely for being so skewed and unreliable. SAx (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As Bbb23 said above, the numbers don't need to add up to 100% as a certain percentage of people polled might not have had an opinion. I don't know if the Rasmussen bit was a joke, but they are a respected pollster and fully RS Noformation (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No comments after Alex Jones

In the article midsection an edit is needed to correct the sentence that implies quotes will follow and ends with "Alex Jones:" 66.75.247.246 (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}}

About what was said here and here, and seeing how some editor pleaded for this article not to show recentism, I think that, as I just said above, that the statement about his alleged Jewish heritage should either be deleted per this (link posted above by Anen87, see statements in the second video, around 5:05), or Emilio Estevez's statements should be mentioned as a sidenote. Something like, "It should be noted, however, that Sheen's brother Emilio Estevez stated in a 2010 interview with The Busted Halo Show that their mother was raised in the Southern Baptist faith."

As far as I'm concerned, seeing how if their mother was to be Jewish they'd be Jewish too, this would affect not only this article but all of Charlie Sheen's siblings ones. And yes, I'm perfectly aware about the sources stating that Janet Templeton is apparently Jewish, but it seems that both of them have as a source Sheen's statments. --186.82.60.241 (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: The statement in question, to be removed or to be followed by "It should be noted etc." would be: "Later in March, Sheen went on Access Hollywood Live and said that because his mother is Jewish, he is also Jewish and therefore not anti-Semitic. (ref)" --186.82.60.241 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather than adding, I think it'd be better to subtract. Sheen's assertion that his mother is Jewish doesn't seem to have gotten much attention. It'd be simplest to leave out that detail rather than digging up various sources for her religion/ethnicity. I suspect that, if it's important, there will be clearer sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

All Hallow's Wraith found a source with a thorough investigation of Sheen's grandmother's past.[5] I suspect that of we wait a week this will all become clearer.   Will Beback  talk  04:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I found the same article as AHW, and although it's an interesting read, I would never cite to it as it's full of assumptions and tenuous connections. As for the Wikipedia article, it's hard at this point to know what to include as the media and Wikipedia editors seem to be in a frenzy to report the latest crap, I mean news. If, however, Sheen's comments about his being Jewish remain in the article, then citing to the Emilio interview (which I have not yet listened to) would be appropriate as counterpoint.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

i agree. Since articles normally dont include religion unless it has some particular importance to the life of the person, there is no need to include Sheen's. However if charges of antisemitism are included, it should be noted if according to the Jewish religion he is considered Jewish. Considering yourself Jewish because thats how he felt that day is meaningless without meeting pre-requisites, just as considering yourself a medical doctor is meaningless (without degree, license, etc..) Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Cult Following

The article seems very limited in the personal life after being fired from two and a half men... He seems to have a cult following now, and is really playing on it as well, and it seems odd that the article mentions nothing on any of the interviews or shows he's been on durring this period (i.e his "Winning Recipes" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504784_162-20041689-10391705.html?tag=mncol%3Blst%3B6). 66.67.42.21 (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a magazine or periodical. This is article is meant to contain the highlights of a person's entire life not the day to day events that they are involved in.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

External Links

I added a link to his official website and his official Facebook and Twitter pages, and they all have been removed. Maybe now linking to his Facebook page I can understand, but every article has the link to the subject's Twitter page if they have one. Also, I don't understand why this article shouldn't contain a link to Sheen's OFFICIAL website. Its not like I am filling the section up with fansites. Karrmann (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Facebook and Sheen website links. This is the second time I removed the Sheen link. Even though it's controlled by Sheen, I removed it because it is not a website about Sheen, it is a website to promote his tour. The top of it says "Enter your email here to sign up and start WINNING!". Then it says, "Buy Tickets to My Violent Torpedo of Truth/Defeat is Not an Option Tour". On the right it has a list of the venues. It has a link at the top to "Shop". According to WP:LINKSPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." The Facebook page is almost as bad. It's also about his tour.

I didn't remove the Twitter account, but it's not true that every article has a link to the subject's Twitter page. Social networking links are controversial, and Wikipedia policy is not as clear as it could be leading to many fights about whether to include Twitter accounts or other social networking accounts. However, the tilt toward NOT including them is pretty straightforward. According to WP:ELNO, links one should "generally avoid": "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists."--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I support Bbb23's comments in regard to EL's and his deletion of the Sheen web site link.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, ELNO #'s 10 and 11 support the removal of these. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We have numerous links to similar websites operated by bands and musicians that primarily promote their tours and albums. How is this different? As for WP:ELNO, it says, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid..." There's no question that this is his official website so other provisions of ELNO do not apply.   Will Beback  talk 

There's a key difference between bands and musicians who promote their tours and albums and Charlie Sheen promoting his tour. The former are promoting things related to their notability. Sheen's tour, to the extent anyone can even characterize it, is not about promoting his acting.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

He's a performer so the distinction between his on-camera activities versus his live appearances seems irrelevant. If a musician became famous for a hit album and then toured, would we say that the tour was unrelated to their notability which stems from recordings?

More broadly, I don't think we can say at this point that Sheen's notability is solely tied to his acting. His personal life receives more coverage nowadays than his career.   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The musician example is closer to your band example than to Sheen. Your second point is overstated. Sheen is notable as an actor. As a notable actor, he's received a lot of press for his various personal issues and unusual behavior, but he wouldn't have received that coverage if he weren't already notable. The body of the article covers his tour stuff because the press covers it, but we don't have to help him sell tickets to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any exception to the EL guideline which says that official sites may be deleted simply because they're overly commercial. This is probably an issue for the external links noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As you say, it's a guideline ("It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."). But I have no problem with posting to WP:ELN. At the moment, the website is in (I was just reverted - ain't life grand?). I don't much care if it remains in until a consensus is reached, although I'm not sure if we'll ever reach one. I'll try to post it on ELN, but I think I'm gonna be called to dinner shortly, which trumps all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so may not succeed.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's posted before mess call. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I put the site back. I just did a check of half a dozen BLPs and found every one had an official web site that would be considered spam. For example, Rush Limbaugh.--Asher196 (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A clear case of WP:ELOFFICIAL. ELNOs don't apply. BitterGrey (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an official site, so it should stay. It has his Facebook and Twitter feeds as well; no reason to have separate links for those. I'm not surprised there is advertising but if you buy tickets to his tour...well, that's your problem.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Asher196, you beat me to the post. I agree with you.

This is a case of hair splitting and selective enforcement.

Practically every celebrity bio on Wikipedia has an outside link to the 'official website'. I have looked at three such 'official' sites used by Ms.Kim Kardashian, Ms. Paris Hilton and Mr. Howard Stern. The 3 were chosen because they grace the pages/shows of the tabloid variety, generate millions by promoting products/services/ almost exclusively by use of new media; and especially are great at promoting their #1 asset - their 'public persona' through a variety of books, DVDs, strategic public appearances at events to reinforce the fan's view of their idol's 'public persona'.

Wikipedia prominently displays the external link to the official websites of all three celebrities on their bio pages. All three official websites violate every single point used to exclude Charlie Sheen's page, except on scales that are almost incomprehensible. Besides POV of Charlie Sheen, no reason could exist for excluding his personal site. Mr. Sheen's site is a microscopic version of the well oiled mega-sites his 3 tabloid industry colleagues use.

All three 'official websites' are composed of a blogs whose entries are advertisements - 'Mr. x. will be on tomorrows show, u can’t miss out on it,’ or 'As I was flying to (exotic location) I remembered my friend (exotic name) from (some company) gave me this new (some product) and its just wonderful! Click here to see a photo of me practically nude with a 3 meter logo of (some company) in the background, and don’t forget to download my new (blackberry/android/ios/symbian) Mobile App!'

Ms. Kardashian's website is actually located within an e-commerce web application as a sub-domain of a tabloid magazine that hosts her site (Wikipedia can’t quote from that magazine because its unreliable!)

All 3 personal sites are an interlinked web of tweets, images, blog, videos (web commercials) and Facebook accounts promoting products/appearances/books/mobile apps/gyms and everything else sold in a mega-supermarket.

Ms. Hilton's site has an amazing use of the page's 'real-estate' with practically every pixel promoting/selling some appearance/product or service, as well as an exclusive VIP area where shocking things will be revealed by insiders for a hefty fee; as well as selling mobile apps, and dozens of other products.

Mr. Stern talks/writes/has sexy photos, shocking comments, wacky side-kicks and everything else that differentiates him; while selling books, promoting his show/tv projects/satellite radio company everywhere on his website including a calendar of dates of appearances (as does Charlie Sheen). His compensation is based on increasing the number of subscribers, which every page of the site effectively does.

Ms. Kardashian displays herself in poses that could make a chiropractor wince, promoting lingerie, beach wear, a fitness magazine and various fashion/beauty products (from within the eCommerce section of the tabloid where her website resides), as well as designers.. etc. always in front of billboard size banners with the companies logos clearly visible everywhere (in exchange for compensation).

An editor I respect, Bbb23, said that Mr. Sheen's personal site was removed because (a) 'it is not a website about Sheen, it is a website to promote his tour'

Mr. Howard Stern's site is not about him either; it’s about a zany Shock Jock which is his radio persona and is designed to convince visitors to purchase and subscribe to satellite radio.

I found nothing about Ms. Hiltons life except I now know the names of 20 cosmetics/shoes/shampoo/jewelry etc designers from staged photos in front of huge logos reinforced by blog posts, youtube, facebook, twitter...

Wow, these people are geniuses with muti-million dollar marketing websites masked as personal sites, and you guys are unhappy with Mr. Sheen's tiny page (that I can believe he made himself due to its poor quality).

If we are serious about this rule, why not go after the corporations and not mom-and-pop stores? Meishern (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So that means we can't post Sheen's offical youtube page either? http://www.youtube.com/user/CharlieSheen --Anen87 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia includes ELs to the official websites of people it covers, 'charliesheen.com' is pretty obviously his only official website (rather than twitter or facebook) so it should be included. I don't feel it's appropriate to start moderating which links to include on the basis of some imaginary standard of how 'commercial' they are, or against any other standard. Incidently we include a link to Bree Olson's website even though the sole purpose of that is to sell porn. Bob House 884 (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

EL to Charlie Sheen's Youtube Channel

(Split off from discussion about charliesheen.com. The first post was duplicated for context.)

So that means we can't post Sheen's offical youtube page either? http://www.youtube.com/user/CharlieSheen --Anen87 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Since this is getting a bit long, it might best handle the youtube page in a separate discussion. WP:ELOFFICIAL doesn't force the inclusion of all official pages: It merely limits the relevant exclusion criteria. BitterGrey (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to be a wikilawyer here, but WP:ELYES says that official links should be included. WP:ELOFFICIAL tells us that the only factors to consider are 1) whether it meets the 'official' definition and 2) whether it falls within WP:ELNEVER. Neither policy discusses any amount of editorial discrecion or any weight whatsoever to be given to our views on the content of the site. Policy states that we should include this link, so we should. Bob House 884 (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

For the first official link, yes. For others, "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." The videos on his main website don't appear to be hosted at youtube, so there isn't a prominent link. There are more videos on his youtube channel than on his website. I haven't watched them to see whether the extra youtube videos provide "unique content."

Is there any opposition to separating the http://www.youtube.com/user/CharlieSheen discussion from the http://www.charliesheen.com discussion? BitterGrey (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Go for it Bob House 884 (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. (End of comments posted before split) BitterGrey (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen Quotes

I think that's a pretty big reason anyone is paying attention to him. Why aren't any of the quotes he's famous for here? Winning? Tiger blood? Warlocks? --130.215.227.41 (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think so too! BUT there lies a question of "encyclopedia."-Above there someone said that a Wikipedia document is not a periodic article...... I wonder what others think about the quotes from him. It's very important methinks. --Dotchwood (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

agree, people come to wikipedia for up to date info on things like this. Needs discussion of his "winning" and other strats and controversy.71.236.2.96 (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You can read some of his famous quotes in http://www.CharlieSheenSays.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.39.53.2 (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comedy Central Roast

I added the Comedy Central roast to the list of his television appearances, even though it didn't air yet. Just wanted to let everyone know. Lukep913 16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Might help if you explain what sort of "roast" this is? Was he prepared for a Sunday lunch? I have no idea about whatever specific cultural reference this is supposed to be, so please clarify or perhaps it would best be removed. 109.176.133.29 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Play Station 3

Charlie Sheen currently plays PS3. You could hear him with his phrase in the YouTube video "Charlie Sheen Winning." His current Play Station Network Username is "bobbya1984." He currently has to much PlayStationNetwork friends, so he cannot get any new friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superjhardy (talk • contribs) 10:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Way too trivial.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Bobbya1984 is NOT Charlie Sheen. I've seen Bobbya1984's videos on IGN and YouTube and he is most DEFINITELY NOT Charlie Sheen. This is a troll/spam comment and should be ignored. Do not feed the trolls.`Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cdhmom, 23 July 2011

CHARITABLE WORKS

In 2011, Charlie Sheen took on a Twitter challenge by a grieving mother to help crtically ill babies born with Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia by supporting CHERUBS - The Association of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Research, Awareness and Support.

http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2011/07/14/charlie-sheen-takes-on-twitter-challenge/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/43748175/

Cdhmom (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Chaim Levine

He called him Chaim Levine.can we add that to the article? I dont see anything antisemitic about that. 65.35.249.125 (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Article Needs to Mention "Tiger Blood & Adonis DNA" Period

I think it's a major oversight that this article contains hardly any mention (if ANY) of Charlie Sheen's meltdown. The most common excuse I've seen for this is that Wikipedia is not a "newspaper" and only "significant" events in his life deserve mention. I think his meltdown is quite significant. For one, a prolonged psychotic experience, as Sheen strongly seems to have had, is CERTAINLY a significant life event. Secondly, Charlie Sheen gained a fairly large and significant cult following this incident. The article mentions his record for reaching 1 million Twitter followers in 24 hours - a record he would NOT have achieved if not for the infamous and insane series of interviews he gave immediately after being fired from Two and a Half Men. Mentioning things like his "Violent Torpedo of Truth: Defeat is Not An Option" nationwide tour seems bizarre to me without the context of the interviews. Sure, he quickly became over-exposed, and plenty of people thought the whole thing was stupid and annoying, but Charlie Sheen's epic meltdown was still a significant event that will, I think, prove to have ripples in popular culture for YEARS to come. I'm not saying we should have a "Quotes" section, but the article needs to mention this period of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.88.22 (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like add my strong agreement to that.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

American Actor

I have found several mistakes, related to the citizenship of many people, as Charlie Sheen. It says American actor, which is a bad concept used by many. America is a continent, where many countries coexists not only one. So the correct citizenship should be used in this encyclopedia, which is US citizen. Let's not forget just because your are big doesn't give you the right to ignore those who live in this bit continent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbocaz (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

American is fine, just as someone from England is English, British and European. While he is a US Citizen he is also American. 94.168.197.169 (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Typos

"On December 25, 2009, Sheen was arrested for assaulting then wife, Brooke Mueller"

I think it'd be s/then/his/

Thanks, I replaced the word "then" with "his". It's not necessary to say "then" it has to be his wife at the time of the arrest.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Intro

Could we add this part "and a total frickin rock star from mars." so it would read

"Carlos Irwin Estevez (born September 3, 1965), better known by his stage name Charlie Sheen, is an American film and television actor and a total frickin rock star from mars."

I'm sure we cant find countless reliable sources that state charlie sheen is a total frickin rock star from mars. 94.168.197.169 (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Find the sources first.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

eighth NOT eight

typo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.39.38 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Concise little notice. Fixed.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not dead

Twitter feed says that the man is dead, no reliable source whatsoever reporting it, almost certainly a hoax. Since anon IPs are repeatedly adding him to Deaths in 2012 I figure they will come here, so I'm giving you all a heads up. Zazaban (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Header

It says acting career iz GAY, I'm gunna have to give the guess that it's vandalism. 137.150.194.188 (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 February 2012

Acting career title is defaced. Please correct by removing 'iz GAY'. 119.224.133.97 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 April 2012

The phrase "The Huffington Post reports Sheen will earn $1 million this year from Twitter endorsements and $7 million from the North American tour." is time-sensitive.

Request that it be changed to: "The Huffington Post reported Sheen will earn $1 million during 2011 from Twitter endorsements and $7 million from the North American tour."

98.247.53.229 (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is better: "The Huffington Post reported in 2011 that it was expected that Sheen would earn $1 million from Twitter endorsements that year and $7 million from the North American Tour." 98.247.53.229 (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Meltdown

I have added a section stub about Sheen's "meltdown" in 2011. That episode is frequently referenced in the media and is always called his "meltdown". Other editors have expressed interest in a section on this topic. It seems that Sheen's meltdown actually contributed positively to his career. I invite other editors to refine this section and develop it further.Wwallacee (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 June 2012

Charlie Sheen is represented by attorney,Yale Galanter Yale galanter (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 Declined That's very amusing. Are you promoting your services here? In any event, what's the point? Represented in what?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Not From Staten Island

his brother emilio was born in staten island but charlie was born in manhattan and has never lived in staten island. someone please remove him from this category at the bottom of the page (article is locked so i can't) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.152.163 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)