Talk:Charlie Sheen/Archive 1

Scary Movie 3
Why, when I click on Scary Movie 3, I am redirected to Charlie Sheen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.16.189 (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2004 (UTC)

23 Sept 2008 Why, when I reformatted some of the text, did the formatting get irretreviable screwed up? Must be me. I have never had this problem before, and no matter how I "fix" it, I can't undo my error. So sorry to everybody, but I could use some help...

NB my system keeps crashing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.219.45 (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * fixed earlier problem. simple error. of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.219.45 (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry..
The sentence "Carlos/Charlie is half hispanic and half Irish." seems at best inaccurate, and at worst derogatory. Ancestry is rarely that simple, and "hispanic" is ambiguous enough to cause problems. I think that would need a lot of work before something similar was added. Wikibofh 16:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, poppycock. Sure, it could be more precise, as there is more than one nationality that falls under the word "Hispanic", but how that's derogatory I can't even begin to understand. --Kamagurka 19:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Noting that someone is Hispanic is derogatory? Or noting that someone is Irish is derogatory? Do you feel that being Hispanic or Irish is bad or cause for humiliation in some way? Please explain. 64.232.129.214 22:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magmagoblin (talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am with the others on this one. What on earth is derogatory about being Hispanic or Irish? This sounds more like Wikibofh's problem with something rather than the articles. Sheen/Estevez is in fact both Hispanic and Irish - what is the difficulty with stating that? Themoodyblue (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You could just say he's half Spanish. Pollythewasp (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Children's Names
Was reported in USA Today that his daughters' names are Lola Rose and Sam J, not Lola Irene and Sam Katherine as page state. Corrections duly made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.56.21 (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing his daughter's name again. It is Sam J, not Samantha Katherine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.56.21 (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the eldest daughter's name today. Somebody has posted it as Samantha Jane Sheen and the couple have stated on multiple occasions that it is Sam (not shortened, just Sam) and that the J doesn't stand for anything. Hopefully this will be the last time it has to be corrected! Sky83 (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracypedia
The man does something like 60 movies. Somehow his encyclopedia article ends up being 1/3rd about an Alex Jones interview. So this is the pivotal event in Mr. Sheen's career and deserves a soapbox that big? The phrase "Hell in a handbasket" comes to mind, Wikipedia-quality-wise. Weregerbil 11:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have removed much of the reference to the Alex Jones-related stuff. Not fully accurate (re Google censorshp), nor of encyclopedic value). --mtz206 13:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please add more info about other aspects of his obviously notable life, but do not remove verified info. --Striver 13:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Im sure there is more to add about him. Please do that. If there is not, then i rest my case. --Striver 13:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an utterly unimportant piece of trivia and has no place being here. If you listen to the interview Sheen is given a two minute spot at the beginning of the interview to promote his work. Likely as not, he plays along with Mr. Jones' tongue-in-cheek radio show to get the ad spot. Weregerbil 13:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bro, his interview with Alex was covered by CNN prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/230306Sheen_CNN.htm]. Its not trivia, in his own words: "we are twenty minutes into this, and I am sure I'm being demonized across the nation by ... you know.. all the the people that do that sort of things".--Striver 13:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Again: 60 movies, 40 years old, done a lot of stuff, now his encyclopedia article is 1/3rd about one interview, complete with a dozen external links. You honestly don't see how that is a very bad quality encyclopedia article? This is such an utterly insignificant little factoid about this person. Weregerbil 13:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please review the discussion at Talk:History of Google where the claim of Google' censuring this story was de-bunked. User:Striver has been trying to place these references to Alex Jones' theories on Google, Internet, Internet2, Google and privacy issues and now here. These are not notable references, not reliable sources and add little encyclopedic value to these articles. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox nor an indiscriminate collection of information Feel free to add these theories to the Alex Jones article as indicative of his beliefs, but they do not belong here. --mtz206 13:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be more about him banging Ginger Lynn. She is one hell of a movie prostitute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.49.95 (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

-- Response to above, This goes to show that the critics of Sheen know little of what they critique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.81.27 (talk • contribs)

--Response to above, You said "Muslims also bombed the WTC in 1993". You have just totally discredited yourself. Read the actual court documents before you pretend to know something. The FBI ADMITTED culpubality in the 93 WTC bombings. They furnished the explosives. The FBI was setting it up as a sting, that is a part of the public record.--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.167.100 (talk • contribs)


 * Because the evidence does not support the "19 Muslim cave-men did it" theory. --Striver 02:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Disregarding whether or not the FBI allegation is true (because I don't have the time to look it up), setting it up as a sting operation is not the same as trying blow it up. The bombers, who were Muslim, intended to blow up the WTC and were not enticed or entrapped to do so. Whether or not the FBI unwittingly helped them by supplying explosives and failing to stop the operation doesn't absolve them of blame. Who's more culpable, the people who set out to blow it up or the FBI who fracked up a sting operation? --Mmx1 11:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide some evidence of any Muslim men being on those planes?--Striver 13:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This disucssion is becoming irrelevant to Charlie Sheen and should perhaps be continued elsewhere. --mtz206 14:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, this has become absolutely ridiculous. Charlie Sheen is an actor, not a political analyst, he's not a national security adviser, nor is he an expert on architecture and demolition (if, indeed, he is these things, then I find it very interesting that the author of the 9/11 opinion piece did not include that information), so, as far as I can see it, any and all of his opinions with regards to the accuracy of the 9/11 commission report or a government "conspiracy", to use the term, are completely and utterly irrelevant and I believe that the section that has been devoted to his opinions on this matter should be completely removed. Since Charlie sheen is an actor, why not focus on his acting career rather than his opinions about the War on Terror. If no one objects, then I'll remove the section in three days (give time for anyone to voice an objection, if they can come up with one) on May 25, 2006. Roygene 23:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Like Sheen said himself on Jimmy Kimmel's show, all you need in this country to have a voice is be a tax paying American who loves their country. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you define what makes a true American then hmmm? I suppose you're suggesting a true American is somebody who just "yes mans" whatever his/her leader(s). In which case if somebody does otherwise, are subject to some type of law violation. If this is accurate, then what you're advocating is tyranny by definition, not freedom, nor liberty. And for everyone's information, the FBI/US Government hasn't indicted Bin Laden for 9/11 either, due to lack of evidence. That's right people, the fat man dressed up like him turned out to be someone else! Stop refuting the evidence and wake up! JanusPaul 16:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the book "Debunking 911 myths" which demolished 911 conspiracy theories and puts them in the same class as creationists. Nobody is trying to deny the right of people like Charlie Sheen creationists, 911 conspiracy theorists or those who think OJ is innocent from talking but we also have the right to put the realist view out there.

Alex Jones interviews fork
Seems a content fork has been made dealing with the Alex Jones interviews. See Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews --mtz206 00:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, its creating a breakout article about a event that would dominate the main article, exactly what Wikpedia Policies command in this kind of situations. --Striver 12:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Stage name
When did Charlie legally adopt his stage name and had he used is as his stage name before? Nil Einne 22:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me....
....or has this article about Charlie Sheen been vandalised?

Seeing that Mr. Sheen had made his coments in the media, I went to wikipedia to see what kind of history he had. But to my surprise, I found that the article was almost nothing but a long list of all the bad things about Charlie Sheen. He was a "blue baby", he did coke, he did prostitutes, etc. etc. etc.

I never found a reason to point my finger at anything on wikipedia before, but this article is very biased. It's not even an article, but more like badly hidden slander. And I must say, I'm not surprised to find this after his media statements. It's obvious that people with a lack of valid arguments are doing everything they can to smear his name.

Unfortunately I am new to this thing (only signed up just now to comment on this), so I don't know how to tag this article with a warning-sign. But I really think it deserves one.

Quote: "Sheen has been dogged by trouble,75.46.13.101 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC) including drugs and a shooting, and he has frequently had problems with the police. Though he was involved with a number of Hollywood personalities, his long-term relationship with adult actress Ginger Lynn in the late 1990s garnered the most media attention. In 1993, his name was found among Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss' list of her most frequent customers, and it was revealed that Sheen hired top-class prostitutes and spent huge amounts on escort agencies. During this time, he also had a serious cocaine addiction."

That's great. Especially when it's about 1/3 of the article. Oh, and that other thing to, about what a miserable creature he was as a child. And then something about all his failed marriages, and that's about it. Great article, good job. Charlie Sheen sure is pathetic, so do not listen to a word he saies. I get it.

This article is aggrevating. Can somebody please put up a big red tag on it? It is clearly written by somebody who hates the guy.


 * I did some work on the article, adding more neutral biographical details and rewriting the personal life section to make it seem less POV. I think the article is fairly neutral in its current incarnation, although it could still use some more work.  --Hyperbole 02:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bellerofron


 * Possibly information on his life growing up and how he got into acting might help show that his life isn't based off of hookers and cocaine? Oh, and how he's spent the past few years researching the events that occurred on 9/11. Unless those things aren't notable enough, in which case the hookers and cocaine would remain since those things probably are notable enough. --71.112.5.94 10:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you can call him being a blue baby as a bad thing about him. It's just a fact of him and doesn't make him bad anymore then being blind or deaf makes you a bad person Nil Einne 16:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out Whitney Houston's entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Houston

Not meaning to be cruel, but the poor woman's life is a drug tragedy. But she has a good write-up.

Because she doesn't speak up, maybe? The lesson seems to be: don't buck the system.

I agree. It's ironic that there was SUCH a big fuss over "too much 9/11 info" before, but now some people INSIST on repeating all of the crappy Denise Richards allegations that are freely available on her page. What gives?

Nakedtruth 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The information on the Sheen/Richards divorce is as relevant to Charlie Sheen as it is to Denise Richards. To limit it to Richards' page in order to make Sheen's views on 9/11 conspiracies look more credible is simply not an NPOV edit.  I'm all for trying to create a balanced article, but deciding to resolve a redundancy in a fashion that supports a POV you'd like to be stressed in the article is not the way to do that.  --Hyperbole 02:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're can't have it both ways. Denise Richards specifically mentioned 9/11 in her divorce filings yet you claim there was "no evidence" that his 9/11 beliefs had nothing to do with the divorce.  Further at this point the divorce no longer has prominence on the Denise Richards page.  If you want to include information about the divorce include information about the divorce.  "Cherry picking" the information by leaving out the fact that it happened right after Charlie went public on 9/11 and ignoring the fact that Denise cited this as a reason for the divorce is not being consistent. Nakedtruth 14:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why no talk about he was caught on tape using the n-word? Overall, I think this article makes him look like a much better person than he is and I believe this is because his fellow 9-11 "truthers" are looking out for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realistwn (talk • contribs) 08:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Link
http://www.lastingnetworks.com/alex/charlie_sheen.htm --Striver 10:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I had deleted this, but put it back in order to make proper comment. Why are you adding links without any comment? (See also . Such actions possibly violate guidelines on external link spamming. --mtz206 17:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The links are there for information, i see no need to copy a part of the article, anyone intrested can take a short look and get just as informed as they would be with me adding a sentance. --Striver 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not the proper use of a Talk page. Links should not be added just "for information." According to the basic rules for talk pages:
 * The purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play. Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia.
 * If you want to include a link to support an argument relevant to the content of the article, please feel free. Otherwise it flirts with WP:NOT . --mtz206 22:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

chronological order?
Wouldn't it be better if the "personal life" section were in chronological order? Uucp 03:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm
Shouldn't someone remove the pornographic image on this page? It may be something to do with recent vandalism..

More film information?
In the Career section there is a very small amount of information about the films he has been in. Charlie Sheen I believe is more of a movie star than a TV star yet the whole thing seems to be based on TV. Any Sheen fans who could write up a decent story about his movie career, mentioning Hot Shots and the like?

I also agree that this is a very negative article, maybe biased but i'll abstain from voting on the matter

How tall
How tall is he? I it true they made the set of Two and A Half Men smaller to make him and his costar look taller? --Gbleem 07:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He's around 5'9". The set allegation sounds ludicrous since Charlie often isn't even wearing shoes. If they were trying to make him look taller, don't you think he'd at least be wearing something on his feet other than socks?76.123.241.114 (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Smoking Gun: Reliable Source?
Is this a tabloid? Piperdown 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

poltical changes
Didn't Sheen used to be a Bush supporter? Would appear his views have moved leftward, to say the least...any further information on this? Seems like a large jump for a former Republican supporter to now be supporting left wing conspiracy theories... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

first of all thinking 911 was inside job doesn't make you a liberal alot people who think 911 was an inside job are conservatives who are against abortion,euthanasia.capitol punishment,war and gay marriage or they could be against against everything i mentioned execpt gay marriage there are tons of people in the world with different range of opinions who deserve respect and love by anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.188.50 (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Respect and love or not, he was once a known Republican supporter, he now seems to have jumped on to what most would consider a fringe conspiracy theory whether "right" or "left". Would be nice for someone to clear this up in the article if there is more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

High School? Classmates?
Other Wikipedia articles list Sheen as Santa Monica High School alumnus and his father as Chaminade-Julienne High School alumnus. Penn, Lowe, and Sheen (and other Estevez family) are on the SMHS alumni list, making the classmate tag possibly accurate (although Penn is 4 years older than Lowe and 5 years older than Sheen). Reference 1 of the Rob Lowe article says Penn was a classmate and the Sheen/Estevez family were neighbors (not classmates).

Image
Hello there, I have an image available, but I would like instructions on how exactly to upload it, the image instructions on the page aren't very clear.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Hammerandclaw, I don't know if you are still interested (since you posted you're message in February) but I would like to help you, let me know. Music2611 (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Considered Narrating Loose Change?
Apparently in 2007 Charlie was considering narrating Loose Change Jozsefs (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2
How come people took away the image of Charlie Sheen. That image said "Charlie Sheen in 2005". Why do you keep taking away images of him people put up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.29.34 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Accent in "Carlos Irwin Estévez"
Do we have a source for the accent in Estévez?  Will Beback   talk    23:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as it can go, the same accent is shown on his dad and his brother's names. 90.218.142.205 (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I have the same question about those.   Will Beback    talk    22:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad that Wikipedians are not the only people that get terribly upset about this stuff. See the lively discussion here about the name of Martin Sheen, i.e. Ramón Antonio Gerard Estévez (or maybe one of the alternative names?). Our usual WP:RS sources seem somewhat confused about this issue, even the Spanish ones. Cs32en  22:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's got to be one of the least helpful discussions I've seen. ;)   Will Beback    talk    22:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really even like the man...
Except for his role in Major Leagues, but his "personal life" seems to be a compilation of every hooker he ever encountered, and what's with the 9/11 truther crap? That's worth maybe one line, maybe? Not these long quotes. Soxwon (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about the 9/11 stuff -- Sheen is primarily known as an actor, not a political figure. No need to go blow-by-blow on that. -Pete (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Joanna Lumley has her Gurkas, Sheen is putting his name on the line for this, Lumely did much less so. Thanks for putting the info back in whether it's substance is crap or not (I'm sure some felt the Gurka stuff was crap too), he has chosen to message it, personally I think his message has some good points, you could do worse than read it.86.3.142.2 (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WOW! The 9/11 section carries way, way too much weight. Blatant violation of WP:UNDUE. Needs to be pared down to maybe 2-3 sentences. This isn't the page for the 9/11 kooks to peddle their warez here. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I said... Soxwon (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Sheen has spent at least the last three or four years of his private and public life focussing attention on dissent of the 911 official story. The objective of Wikipedia is to share representative facts about an individual's life. The man's involvement in the 911 truth movement is notable and demands a separate section on the topic.  Comments about the "911 truth kooks" do not belong in discussion forum of Wikipedia so please beware the bias.Carolinequarrier (talk)carolinequarrier  —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Incorrect. At the heart of the matter is the fact that it's a fringe theory, and we don't give the 9/11 truth kooks any more areas in which to spread the craziness.  2-3 sentences, tops.  The admin who deleted all but the original first paragraph got it right. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect? WTF?? a fringe theory would apply to the page about the theory not the man himself. The fact you believe they are kooks is entiterly your perogative, the guy has written an open letter the President (generated over 190 press stories within two days), made a video that has been in the press and heavily debated. Does the current version even mention that he has twenty basic points in his letter hmmm very vaguely - "to discuss a list of questions he had about the attacks" - not "20 points of fact"? Very poor coverage of something important in Sheen's life that could be, and should be, better explained.163.1.147.64 (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I'm the "admin" you're referring to, I'd like to point out…I'm not intending to come here with any special "adminly privileges," and should emphasize that I don't know much about Sheen and his life. So I'm not personally all that strongly opposed to including more info, if a case can be made that it's a significant part of his bio. It's just that the current text was pretty out of whack with what was under discussion.
 * I agree that referring to any group as "kooks" is not really productive. If Sheen is that kind of "kook," then maybe his "kookiness" belongs in the bio. We really shouldn't be looking at the bio of an individual from a primarily political perspective, regardless of which side of the political debate we might be on. -Pete (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The guideline on fringe theories gives advice on how to treat fringe theories in articles about theories. This is an article about a person, and if a fringe theory (or a hypothesis which the majority currently rejects) plays an important role in that persons life, we give it due weight. We may indicate that it's a fringe theory by the wording, i.e. using "alleged" etc., but this is a matter of presentation, not of quantity. Cs32en  03:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PLEASE< PLEASE explain exactly how Mr Sheen is A "Fringe Theory" this set of rules doesn't apply and you know it. "This guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects." How those ARTICLES approach their SUBJECT = RULE NO GOOD. Must try harder.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:V always has sway over WP:FRINGE the latter which can be misleading, the only question is how to flow sourced text following WP:UNDUE in an encyclopedic way. That aside, this talk page has been hovering on the very edge of WP:BLP violations, if it hasn't already fallen into them. Please stop all the name calling forthwith but rather, let the sources speak for themselves. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm responding to a post in the BLP Noticeboard. I've placed an NPOV tag on the "personal life" section. It is far too long, and as was suggested above it seems like a compilation of every hooker he's encountered. Secondly I disagree with adding a reference to his 9-11 views to the lead section. Doesn't belong there. He is an actor not a political activist. --Stetsonharry (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't that the personal life section is too long, it's that the career section is much, much, much too short and truly needs to be expanded. As it is at this moment, it doesn't place undue weight on what has been a fairly high-profile personal life. Having said that, a lengthy section on 9/11 doesn't belong in this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He may actually be both an actor and a political activist, given that he recently wrote an open letter to President Obama asking for a new investigation into the 9/11 attacks. Cs32en  23:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether he wrote such a letter, but how many independent sources covered that letter, and in how much depth. -Pete (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are such independent reliable sources. However, as self-published information can be used in an article about the person who has published it, we would not be restricted to such sources (it's always better to use them, if available). If 9/11 is important for Sheen, then we should give it appropriate space in our article on Sheen. (It may be somewhat more difficult to ascertain the relative importance of 9/11 for Sheen, among his other activities, because people usually don't publish text that explicitly say: "For me, XY is really important...".) As the article is basically divided into "Career" and "Private life", a separate section on 9/11 seems too much, but a section on political views, and a subsection on 9/11, seems appropriate. Cs32en  00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that a subsection sounds reasonable. Keeping the 9/11 text in the Personal Life section doesn't make a whole lot of sense since he's gone so public with it.Carolinequarrier (talk)Carolinequarrier —Preceding undated comment added 02:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Subsection as was before the people who like to think in "9/11 truther crap" terms started playing with it.163.1.147.64 (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A few points of interest: -Pete (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) And:
 * Telegraph article recently inserted into article, detailing Sheen's letter and a new video
 * Houston Chronicle story
 * FoxNews coverage
 * Video clip of Meghan McCain criticizing Sheen on the View
 * Press release from Alex Jones Radio Network re: Sheen's statements and challenge
 * Daily Mail
 * The Sun
 * LA Times
 * Houston Chronicle
 * Reuters
 * Irish Independent and the list goes on and on for the big paper bloggists and all the little papers too.163.1.147.64 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, fine. I'm personally not worried about the sourcing of the 9-11 stuff but the emphasis that his personal life, bed activities and politics is given in this article. He is an actor, and his career needs to be fleshed out by someone interested enough in the gent to do so. This is not People magazine or the National Enquirer.Stetsonharry (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The sentence "Using a mock interview format, the letter fictionally presents the president with several bullet points reflecting major issues of concern for what has become known as the 911 Truth Movement." appears (to me) to be unnecessary detail. I tried removing it twice, but unintentionally re-added other problematic wording due to my using an earlier version of the section, so my changes were reverted. To me, that sentence either needs to be totally reworked, or could just be dropped as the other existing text adequately addresses his concerns and actions. It may also be reasonable to combine the existing section into a single paragraph rather than having multiple extremely short paragraphs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that reworked the wording while I was typing here (we had already discussed the issue on his talk page), so strike my concern - it appears to be resolved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Presenting his views as a transcript of a fictional encounter with Obama, he characterized the 9/11 commission as a whitewash and alleged that the administration of former US President George W. Bush was responsible for the attacks". Where does Sheen assert this, I believe the papers are putting the words into his mouth, I don't see that in his 20 questions piece. I thought Mr Sheen actually asked if the Pres was aware 6/10 911 commissioners publicly stated that the report was not truthful. If the many hit pieces are used, do not fall into the same trap they do and repeat their view of what he same without saying that he didn't say and the Mr A of Whichever characterised this as being whatever.86.3.142.2 (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We can add content from self-published sources here, of course. Maybe it's better to continue the work on that section after some basic issues with the article have been sorted out. Cs32en  05:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those comments. The most even handed report to read is this one by Reuters - I don't think we should need self-published cites - the letter itself is on Alex Jones' sites (though the mention of it and the questions in it no longer appear in the article, which is disappointing as this is what Sheen has stated is what is really important to him [stated in radio interview, now chekcing online for write-up of that]) Sheen quite expected to have a backlash and for the whole purpose of the letter to be ignored and the letter and its questions left unmentioned, wikipedia (at this moment in time) backs up his assertions in this respect. The Reuters piece, if any, is the most impartial piece, the article should include some of that as well as a link to Sheen's 20 questions.163.1.147.64 (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, folks, I'm going to insist on only using links to reliable sources as outlined under WP:RS. There is absolutely no reason for self-published sources to be used here when this is being covered in major published sources that are clearly acceptable under WP:RS. I see absolutely no reason that a source such as www.rawstory.com should appear in this article, and in fact, I have concerns with 3, and perhaps 4, of the 7 sources being used in this brief section. I also have issue with what appears to be edit warring tonight. Discuss it here, folks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you if you are talking about any self-published sources other than sources published by Sheen himself (or by people acting under his direction). From WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves." The press release carried by Reuters, for example, is published by The Alex Jones Show, not by Sheen. I doubt Sheen would use the wording of some parts of that press release. As for various independent sources, if it's about something that would raise BLP issues, there always should be multiple independent sources for a particular piece of information. If it's not a BLP issue, I don't see why we should restrict our sourcing to CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post. So that particular text from rawstory.com seems ok, especially as it does not contain any exceptional claims (in excess of the claims that can be sourced to CNN as well). Cs32en  08:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good article status
I'll give the above discussion time to play out, but I plan to request a good article reassessment for this article very soon. I don't believe it comes near meeting WP:GA requirements and it should be revisited. My main concerns involve sourcing and the wholly less than comprehensive coverage of his career. Three paragraphs for a career spanning nearly 30 years is hopelessly inadequate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GAR seems reasonable to me. I was pretty astonished to find that it doesn't mention that he's the highest-paid actor in TV, even though there is a source cited for another fact with that as the headline(!) -Pete (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But I also agree that a GAR during a potentially significant unfolding story would be extra-difficult, and it would probably be good to let this issue find some resolution first. -Pete (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's why I opted to wait!! But not forever. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As of this moment, I don't see how this could be a good article. It would take quite some work to get there, in my opinion, so better remove the good article status now, and re-nominate it later (possibly much later, however). Cs32en  07:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad somebody noticed. This is definitely not GA-worthy. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

For easy reference, here is the GA-approved version. -Pete (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting a good article reassessment. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As we'd discussed further up, a GA review should have waited until the current issue is settled. The simple fact that at present, the article couldn't be considered stable would be a quick-fail for a new GA nomination. But to reiterate, it's not the weight of the personal life section that is at issue in regards to a GA, but the lack of scope given to the real the man is notable - his career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see it continuing as a GA in its current state. It just isn't any good. The length of the personal life section is relevant because even if the career section is lengthened significantly, chanced are it will still be too long and too salacious. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Of course, on the other hand, you have more experience with GARs than I do. I've posted your concerns on the BLP/N (where I first read about this) and I'd have no problem withdrawing the GAR for the time being if that's the general feeling. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's better to have a quick fail at GAR than to continue indicating to readers that WP would consider this a good article. Also, as the previous assessment seems faulty to me, it's better to start building consensus without any particular version of the article carrying the label "GA". Cs32en  20:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that was sort of my feeling too, but I wanted to see what people felt about putting it off as requested. I'm fine either way.Stetsonharry (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've participated in several GA's both as a nominator and a reviewer, but never a GAR. So take my opinion with a grain of sale. Prior to Stetsonharry's action, I would have said (did say) that it would be better to wait a bit. However, I agree with the sentiment expressed above, that the original GA review was in error, and that neither the 2008 version nor the present version of the article is worthy of GA. So now that the GAR has been opened, I think a full consideration of it is warranted. I think trying to withdraw it would be more problematic than just going through with it. I'll leave comments over there shortly. -Pete (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad more attention has focused on this article Wildhartlivie is correct: the career section is far too short. I'm not saying that his truther views and bed actions need to be totally submerged or deleted, just kept in context and not overwhelming this bio. The separate section on his political beliefs troubles me me just a bit, but I'm not sure it's unwarranted entirely. He has gotten attention for his 9-11 views, much of it self-generated. So yes, to some extent the slant of the article is his own doing. But we have to guard against overemphasis. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Press reports vs. published statements
In an article about a person, we can use the self-published sources of that person. On that basis, some recent editing disputes may be resolved. Cs32en 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC) But only in regard to things expressly about the subject. And it should be accompanied by reliable sources whenever possible, especially in regard to WP:BLP. WP:SPS limits the use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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. --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)

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 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 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.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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
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)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)
✅ 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.-- — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • 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: 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?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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."
 * 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, 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.  Dubious Irony  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 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. 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.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • 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

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 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)

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)