Talk:Charlie Sheen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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.[1] 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.[2] 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.[3] 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)

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)

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 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)

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 for 1/25/2013 .. The movie Cadence (1990) cast Charlie Sheen as the "good" rebel in conflict with Martin Sheen's character as the "evil" authority figure. I regard the film as beautiful, not for anything to do with the main plot or characters, but because of the wonderful harmony singing of various songs by the black prisoners as well as their fancy dancing/marching. I would ask that someone add this particular film to the list in the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.34.132 (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2013 (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)

That as just mentioned on E Hollywood True Story this morning. Charlie changed his name for some reason. This other guy changed his name for some reason, and Charlie appeared to be intoxicated when he made the comment. I don't think it's worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.34.132 (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Current relationship

While appearing on 'Piers Morgan' (Jan. 2013), Charlie Sheen talks about his current girlfriend. He refers to her as "Jones" and admits that she was a former Adult (porn) actress, who specialised in "Girl On Girl" scenes.

Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g1VY3CO4UE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckonz (talk • contribs) 23:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Anger Management

"Anger Management" (the Series) is NOT a spin-off of the 2003 movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.134.3 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Highest paid actor on television?

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

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)

There was something to day on E! Hollywood True Story which stated that Sheen was the highest paid actor on television, but I don't know whether or how you would source something to a well-regarded television news program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.34.132 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But who was the highest paid TV actors of the past thirty years? If you adjust for inflation, Sheen might be the top guy. Go back thirty years. Two of the top ten actors on TV in 1983 were Larry Hagman and Tom Selleck. Dallas and Magnum were top-rated shows. If you adjust for inflation, then in today's dollars, how much were they earning? Marc Smilen, Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

he eat the booty

he like boys,he was recently envolved in gay (pornography) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.69.50 (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Carlos Estevez

That is his real name AND his new stage name. Title needs to be changed in respect to the actor and reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.98.9 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

charlie sheen

died today by a snowboard accident — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.66.148 (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 Carlos Estevez

I saw where Charlie is going back to his Christian name, Carlos Estevez, for his new movie. Where should this be mentioned? — Wyliepedia 12:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. Carlos Estevez is his BIRTH name. What does christianity have to do with whatever name he uses. What is the logic for making a for/against argument whether "Charlie Sheen" is or isnt a Christian name? Christianity is a set of beliefs; And if such beliefs are not held by an individual personally, the set of beliefs is of the people that an individual descends from. A name in and of itself cannot be considered "christian." Marc S. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You appear not to know what "Christian name" means - it's just another way of saying "first name" FOARP (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not for everyone. It's better to just stick to "fist name," if that's what you mean. However, Carlos Estevez is a given name and surname, so the usage would be incorrect in any case. Tad Lincoln (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool it. "Christian name" is a perfectly common synonym for "first name", and there is no reason why somebody couldn't use the term to refer to what you call "first name". People may have a personal preference for "first name" over "Christian name", but that shouldn't ban others from using "Christian name" in a sense which the word, as evidenced in any reputable dictionary of the English language, has. SchnitteUK (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What's with this unnecessary disclaimer?

Front of the article:

"To be distinguished from Hollywood Undead member Charlie Scene."

Who is going to fail to make the distinction? The names are completely different and I (and probably everyone else over 12) have never and otherwise would never have heard of the latter. Quite frankly, I would have been much happier.

This is clearly in need of removal. It's Charlie Sheen, for fuck's sake. He's one of the most famous people in the world. 81.152.62.20 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen ALS "IBC"

Put this one in the article "Charlie Sheen" donated $10,000 to the ALS foundatation, after he did his own rendition of the viral sensation, the "Ice Bucket Challenge." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.114.198 (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

75.117.97.166 (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Brittany Ashland

Why no mention of him pleading no-contest to the 1997 charge of assault against his girlfriend Brittany Ashland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.194.218.25 (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

fixing the shadow

ik mis "fixing the shadow" op de lijst, is dit iemand al opgevallen!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.205.8 (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Is een andere titel voor "beyond the law", al duidelijk nu!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.205.8 (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charlie Sheen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929141911/http://www.cbsnews.com:80/stories/2011/09/26/ap/entertainment/main20111934.shtml to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/26/ap/entertainment/main20111934.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Jumping the gun on the Today interview

So, today the Today show announced that tomorrow the Today show will have an exclusive interview with Charlie Sheen. That's all the announcement says; readers can see for themselves [4]. Now as a result this article on a living person claims, not that the subject is looking a bit thin in the face, but that the subject has HIV. That is unacceptable, right now, because it is speculation - even though the speculation is found in other sources. I cannot revert this BLP violation due to semiprotection, but it should be reverted. This is not a matter in which Wikipedia should chase rumors, nor should the attitude be to "wait and see" whether this negative speculation is correct. Regardless of whether it might be acceptable - or not - in the future, it does not belong here now. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

As my requests elsewhere for a revert of this material have not prospered, will an editor able to edit semi-protected pages please edit the page to remove the material added to the section "Substance abuse and legal issues" alleging that the article subject has HIV? To be clear, it is the material added in this diff.

As it stands, this material violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and should be removed. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done I have removed the addition for now. The information can be added back if there is a reliable source. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

People Magazine is reporting on tomorrow's big announcement too: http://www.people.com/article/charlie-sheen-hiv-positive-could-exes-sue Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 November 2015

The last sentence of the introductory paragraph ends with "having been diagnosed four year previously".

"Year" should be "years".

Greynose (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've just logged in for the same reason. "having been diagnosed four year previously". Obvious missing "s" there. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"In" should also be "on", and the date should be MDY format since Sheen is American. I would also propose moving this information out of the lead, or at least working it into the paragraph before it. Chase (talk | contributions) 13:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Sarahj2107. I've never had an edit conflict on a protected page before. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Typo

He said in an interview that the were '3 hard letters to absorb'. [7]

Also, the quote should be in double quote marks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Relevant category

Please add the category: "Category:People with HIV/AIDS" to the article, per his public declaration, and information referenced in the lead. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

His Tattoo Collection

I propose a section that would describe Mr. Sheen's extensive tattoo collection as his tattoos say plenty about his life and his views.

His tattoos include:

• Charlie Brown on his right chest
• The New York Yankees logo on his left shoulder
• The phrase "Death from above" in the middle of his chest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queens Historian (talk • contribs) 18:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Pornography

Should the article include his ex-wife's claims? (79.67.115.88 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC))

Health Situation

Should more information be added on his current state of health? Or that he is HIV positive? Not sure if it is relevant enough to add more information. Anyways, here are some reliable sources:

• http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17/health/charlie-sheen-health/
• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/business/charlie-sheen-hiv-positive.html?_r=0
• http://www.businessinsider.com/charlie-sheen-confirms-hes-hiv-positive-on-today-show-2015-11
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3321991/Charlie-Sheen-CONFIRMS-HIV-positive-bombshell-Today-interview.html

Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

HIV

Hasn't Sheen now officially stated that he is HIV positive? Why is this information not in the article? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it has widespread coverage in mainstream media, with plenty of reliable sources, at the very least the article should make reference to the widespread mainstream media coverage given over the past few days. http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/16/media/charlie-sheen-today-show/index.html WP:OWN by the Wikipedia inner circle comes to mind here. But don't be too concerned it will be all over soon!:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.131.222 (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen: "I'm here to admit that I am HIV-positive" [5]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you people seriously learned nothing from Caitlyn Jenner and the Diane Sawyer interview? We do not add controversial gossip about living people, no matter how widespread the gossip becomes or how reliable the publications the gossip gets published in are. Period. There are legal reasons for these policies; take it from someone currently taking a university course on media and the law. Much thanks to Samsara for locking this yesterday before the shit got out of hand, and to Ged UK for waiting for responsible sourcing before adding the information back. Wikipedia is not Twitter or TMZ; there is no rush to have information before anybody else. Our information must be accurate, responsibly-sourced, and encyclopedic. Chase (talk | contributions) 13:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what planet you live on but the basic rule of Wikipedia is that such important information about his health should be added, especially when he openly admitted this to the entire world. Nobody is disputing this, and it's not controversial gossip or rumor but a true fact.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Now, today, it is a fact confirmed by Sheen. Yesterday when people were reporting this it was a rumor. What if those rumors were false and he was only going on the Today show to promote a new cookbook? This is why we wait to publish contentious information. Chase (talk | contributions) 15:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Give me a break! The news articles made it obviously clear that he was going to confirm his HIV disease to the world, which had been known to some for years. You're one of those who want to see crystal clear evidence that ISIS was in fact behind the latest terrorist attack in France before we can add that. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your idea of "obviously clear" doesn't match with either Wikipedia policy or American libel laws. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it´s sourced and in the article now. Should it remain in the lead, all things considered? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Rumors are swirling around the internet from homosexual encounters to prostitutes to drug use all gave him HIV, but he hasn't revealed much about it other than he has it, so wait for the real news to come out then post something about it, it's too fresh right now.2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:E42C:7D5E:31CA:82A0 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Says he slept with more than 5,000 women, and paid more than $10 million in blackmail money to keep his HIV status a secret

This info should be included in the article.

Since the article already says that Sheen said it's "impossible" that he infected anyone with HIV, as a counter point, it should also mention that he claimed to have slept with more than 5,000 women.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12000585/Charlie-Sheen-to-make-personal-announcement-reports-HIV-positive-live.html

"Despite sleeping with over 5,000 women, by his own admission, Sheen said it was “impossible” that he had infected anyone."

The same article also says:

"The 50-year-old had been subjected to rumours about his health for months. But on Tuesday he went on live television to say that he had been diagnosed four years ago, and was speaking out partly to end blackmail which has cost him more than $10 million (£6.6m)."

Brock88734 (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe that ANYTHING that he says is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

He and his brother Emilio Estevez have been bragging about sleeping with that many women since the late 1980s. This is something many American men claim but its usually just to gain attention, especially women's attention. Based on his natural character and actions (e.g., paying $10 million to people to keep his HIV disease a secret), we shouldn't add such wild claims.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Undetectable=sexually non-infectious

add the sentence below after "On November 17, 2015, Sheen announced that he was HIV positive, having been diagnosed roughly four years earlier.[106] He said in an interview that they were "three hard letters to absorb".[107] He manages his condition with a triple cocktail of antiretroviral drugs, and he stated that it was impossible that he could have infected any partners.[citation needed]" HIV Transmission Risk Essentially 0 if Heterosexual Partner Has Undetectable Viral Load — Preceding unsigned comment added by S3003 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Mathematically 0.1 is essentially zero, you would infect one person in ten coupling events. Mathematically 0.01 is essentially zero, you would infect one person in one hundred coupling events. Mathematically 0.001 is essentially zero, you would infect one person in one thousand coupling events. He had over 1,000 events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 4:34, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

  Fixed ref error causing signing to break and changed answered parameter to yes as the request has been answered by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) --Stabila711 (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

References

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article was the sixth most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 1,409,179 views for the week November 15 to 21, 2015. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  07:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Wig

Should the article mention that Sheen wears a wig? (79.67.105.45 (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC))

Do you have any evidence he wears a wig? It doesn't sound like the kind of detail an article would normally include. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's true that whether a person wears a wig or not would not normally be included in a Wiki bio, but this guy is an actor, so it's a major part of his appearance, which in turn is a major part of his career, so it would be appropriate in this case to include whether or not he wears a wig.Betathetapi545 (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Photographs show he is actually seriously balding. (79.67.105.45 (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC))

Saying it doesn't make it true. You need a source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charlie Sheen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/02/23/charlie-sheen-rehab/
  • Fixed dead link with archived link.
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028083812/http://www.aidforaids.net:80/events.html to http://www.aidforaids.net/events.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929171618/http://jennaelfman.com/club/events_calendar.php to http://www.jennaelfman.com/club/events_calendar.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 07:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Networth $125 million

Please add this info :

Charlie Sheen's networth is $125 million.

Source - http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/actors/charlie-sheen-net-worth

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

herpes allegations

Does anyone know if the herpes allegations are true? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3330633/Video-surfaces-showing-HIV-positive-Charlie-Sheen-performing-oral-sex-man-smoking-crack-cocaine.html If they can be confirmed they should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.149.135 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Charlie Sheen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512185345/http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=sheen%2Fmerron to http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=sheen%2Fmerron
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115205920/http://www.biggeststars.com/c/charlie-sheen-biography.html to http://www.biggeststars.com/c/charlie-sheen-biography.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112001551/http://www.showblitz.com/2011/09/sheen-channels-his-real-life-in-glimpse.html to http://www.showblitz.com/2011/09/sheen-channels-his-real-life-in-glimpse.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120701060628/http://www.eonline.com/news/watch_with_kristin/anger_management_ratings_how_did/326954 to http://www.eonline.com/news/watch_with_kristin/anger_management_ratings_how_did/326954
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090616003440/http://www.intouchweekly.com/2009/04/in_touch_exclusivecharlie_shee.php to http://www.intouchweekly.com/2009/04/in_touch_exclusivecharlie_shee.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aidforaids.net/events.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924064200/http://www.cnbc.com/id/43748175/ to http://www.cnbc.com/id/43748175/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charlie Sheen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512185425/http://www.thegoldenglobes.com/welcome.html?nominee%2Fsheen_charlie.html to http://www.thegoldenglobes.com/welcome.html?nominee%2Fsheen_charlie.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322023706/http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/charlie-sheen.html to http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/charlie-sheen.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

add link to "violent torpedo of truth" wikipedia page

suggest edit to "other ventures" section to add link to My Violent Torpedo of Truth page, as that page is an orphan. tried to add it myself but with the new totalitarian nature of wiki - alas - the page is locked and there is no way to edit it. oh yeah...winning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.181.200 (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charlie Sheen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206075143/http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800020143/filmography to https://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800020143/filmography
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110315160027/http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/02/sheen-loses-custody-of-twin-sons/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/02/sheen-loses-custody-of-twin-sons/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110306195551/http://www.okmagazine.com/2011/03/charlie-sheen-2020-interview-rachel-oberlin-says-i-would-love-to-marry-charlie/ to http://www.okmagazine.com/2011/03/charlie-sheen-2020-interview-rachel-oberlin-says-i-would-love-to-marry-charlie/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.theinsider.com/news/411727_Martin_Sheen_Beats_Perez_Hilton_in_Popularity_Competition_with_the_Gays

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)