Talk:Charlie Sheen

Removed Hispanic Americans category

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

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

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

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

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

Removed redundant and misplaced paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dec 25 Incident and BAC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brooke Mueller's lawyer on the sworn statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

whitewash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charlie Sheen was born in Mexico City????

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

Convictions

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

Spokesperson vs. spokesman

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

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

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

Capri Anderson and Charlie Sheen scandal

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

Watch out for odd edits

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

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

Charlies first child

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

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

Edit request from 75.62.14.130, 28 January 2011

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

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

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

Word usage: damage(s)

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

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

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

Content related to temporary hospitalization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change the picture

Dear Admin,

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

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

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

Ginger Lynn time conflict

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

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

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

My Copy Edits Today

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

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

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

Suggestions for Improvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's events

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

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

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

added info regarding October 26, 2010 incident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source for Apocalypse Now

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

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

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

Net Worth

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

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

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

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

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)