Talk:Sharon Stone/Archive 1

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

Image copyright

I suspect the image shown in the article is a copyvio. The image's page has absolutely no copyright information. I suspect KF just lifted from somewhere off the Internet. Can anyone confirm or refute? —Frecklefoot 15:33, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this question. I uploaded that image of Sharon Stone on 26 December 2002, that is a loooong time ago in Wikipedia time. Back then I didn't even know the meaning of fair use (cf. Talk:Sharon Tate).
Telling me that "those with a history of violations may be temporarily suspended from editing pages" is just a bit too much: Being suspended for something I did one and a half years ago when I had just discovered the upload button? You must be joking!
If it makes you happy, please delete all my old uploads. I don't mind, I don't care. All the best, <KF> 21:22, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Didn't mean to offend and I know I made plenty of mistakes when I began Wiki-ing. That text "those with a history of violations may be temporarily suspended from editing pages" was just part of the standard boilerplate text I copied & pasted. —Regards, Frecklefoot 14:42, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sexuality

Why is she categorized as LGBT? I see no source for this, other than that she played a bisexual serial killer, and received an award from the NCLR. Cleduc 21:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In a recent interview in the advocate, she came out as bisexual. 68.46.22.195

Objectivity

Faye Dunaway of her generation? Isn't that a bit subjective?

The role that made her a true star, the Faye Dunaway of her generation, was that of Catherine Tramell, a brilliant coke-snorting bisexual mind-game playing serial killer in the sexually-charged Basic Instinct (1992). Stone went to considerable trouble to obtain the part for which she was far from first choice. Stone had to wait and actually turned down offers for the mere prospect to play Catherine Tramell. Several better known actresses of the time such as Geena Davis turned down the part mostly because of the nudity required. In the movie’s most notorious scene Ms. Tramell is being questioned by the police and she crosses and uncrosses her legs revealing the fact she wasn't wearing any underwear. Nothing was left to the imagination. Stone claims to have been tricked into the stunt and considered a lawsuit.
That paragraph is very biased. It needs citing for saying that "she considered a lawsuit" and that Greena Davis "turned it down mostly because of the nudity required". Also, the first sentence is long and reads very poorly.

-- I think you are the one that read poorly ...--69.37.90.237 18:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

objectivity and accuracy

It's not Simon Peres, it's Shimon Peres.

The red flag raised over the objectivity and accuracy of comments made about Ms. Stone's being "the Faye Dunaway of her generation" underscore what is perhaps Wikipedia's biggest problem, that of objectivity and accuracy. The webmasters at Wikipedia (and this is solely my opinion, you are free to diagree) remind me of parents who allow their kids to run rampant while either being too distracted with other things to notice, or worse, turning a blind eye. I wouldn't be surprised to find we've all encountered factual inaccuracies and biased entries on this site.

One of Wikipedia's great strengths (and great appeal) is the ability to edit articles. Naturally, this strength becomes a weakness when anyone can change a corrected aticle back into an incorrect version. This, of course, is incredibly frustrating for posters interested in maintaning accurate articles. All of it leaves me wondering, "Who's minding the store?"

Well... who, then? Who's culpable? Who, exactly, is the final authority? Admittedly, I'm speaking out of ignorance here. If Wikipedia has watchmen guarding the towers, someone should lend them a hand. I've cleaned up articles myself, but like so many Wikipedia adherents, I too have a full-time job and can't maintain the type of vigilance necessary to ensure the objectivity and accuracy any encyclopedia needs.

Any suggestion? And by that, I don't mean ad hoc attacks or knee-jerk comments. I mean actual, helpful suggestions as to how the problem must be addressed.

Thanks.

I think you are confusing style with objectivity. Its about a movie star for Christ sake you twit. Get off your high horse.--69.37.90.237 18:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And anonymously (or in wiki-talk, "some might say "cowardly") name-calling helps how?--Buckboard 08:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

2004 - present

I deleted the quotations of Sharon's speech at Israel. I can't see how that gibberish can contribute to the article. I left the link though, for those who may want to read the quotations. Prickus 14:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Basic Instinct Screencap

Now, I know it's the scene that made her famous, but do we really need to show an image of her with her legs uncrossed? What's the wikipolicy on that, anyway? Max22 15:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Since it's probably what most people are looking for when they come here then it would seem churlish not to include it.

213.122.38.234 16:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree though I would say its what got her big start, not what she is most famous for.--69.37.254.159 01:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The picture was removed by Malaenboer (talk · contribs), with the summary Why was there an inappropriate picture there?
(The picture was also removed by CieloEstrellado (talk · contribs) from Basic Instinct.)
To answer the question above: about one third of the section 1990-2004 revolves around this scene, so clearly some wikipedia editor did consider this screenshot appropriate. It is certainly the best known scene from the movie, and, even though she has made quite a number of movies between 1990 and 2004, it is arguably the best known Stone scene from that period.
At the moment I do not want to take a position on whether the textual description of the scene is superior to the combination of "text plus picture". (I don't even know what I mean by "superior" here. More informative? Obviously not "more tasteful", nor "more tactful", but I am not sure if taste and tact should be an issue here.)
Austrian 21:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
There are images of genitalia on other Wikipedia entries, the criteria for inclusion not being if the images are 'appropriate' but whether they have information value. Since the scene is iconic and is much debated then I think its use is legitimate here - it is certainly more relevant to the text than the other images included. 81.131.83.76 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Biographical articles generally don't include nude photos. A screenshot from the interrogation scene would be appropriate, but I don't think the nude shot is. (Also, in reply to a comment above, I doubt that most people looking for an encyclopedia article about Sharon Stone are trying to find the shot from Basic Instinct.) tregoweth 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, the Principle of least astonishment is something to keep in mind here. tregoweth 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If a screenshot from the interrogation scene is 'appropriate' then it is logical to include the scene that it is famous for.81.131.46.175 15:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Um, biographies of porn stars don't include nude photos; I don't see why Stone's should include a shot of her genitalia. Also, again, I mention the Principle of least astonishment: In an article about the vagina, you expect to see images of genitalia. In an article about an actress, you don't. tregoweth 15:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Porn stars don't usually have iconic scenes in classic films. It is not uncommon for screencaps on other actors' profiles showing famous roles or famous scenes so I don't see why this image should be prohibited. It's the scene that she is most famous for, in her most famous role in her best known film. The fact that she is showing her fanny does not affect the argument for its inclusion. 81.131.46.175 16:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that the people devoted to keeping the legs-spread screencap all seem to be anonymous IP users. If you feel that strongly, perhaps you'd like to log in or register? tregoweth 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We're up to fifteen revisions here. Can we get a, a, a peer review, or something? (I'm not an entirely experienced Wikieditor) Max22 05:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops, never mind; I didn't see the "Request for Comment" below. Max22 00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

RfC was posted on May 20, 2006 re. whether the "uncrossed legs" screenshot should be included. This section is purely for a comment by outside editors - not for debate and dispute by those already involved.
It should be included as it is a famous scene and the only way to judge it is by seeing it. It is not comparable with porn, as it is a scene of dramatic sexual tension in a narrative. The small size of the thumbnail is not at all revealing anyway, and the rather dark enlargement hardly more so. Tyrenius 17:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the scene is a notable one — but you can just as easily take a screencap of her a few seconds later, with her legs crossed. The scene would not be less recognisable. ~ Flooch 23:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above, perhaps a screenshot of her just after, news sources do it all the time and it conveys the same idea and is just as memorable. I think the picture of her with her legs open is unnecessary. --Zer0faults 12:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a) a screenshot of that scene adds to the article, and that b) it should not be this particular image. The issue here, I think, is intent: most people will be prepared to see a revealing photograph on a page about genetalia, but would not be prepared to see female genetalia on a page about an actor. It's arguable that one familiar with Sharon Stone might expect something of the sort on a page about the actress, but if a person knew much about her, they may not be looking her up in an encyclopedia, anyway. An image of her in that scene with her legs crossed would be appropriate, or even better may be this image with the area between her legs edited to be darker or blurred (I think that there is an image tag for edited images, yes?) Verloren Hoop 19:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Wikipedia should be kept as "family friendly" as possible as its a worldwide source for possible homework research. Is there a Wikipolicy on nudity or adult images? Garydh 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the wrong way to view it because some topics are inherently adult in nature. The appropriateness of an image should be judged in regards solely to the topic at hand if justice is going to be done to it. Many of us feel that displaying the image is warranted because the actress has built her career on that one scene - it is integral to the context of Sharon Stone. Personally I'd rather show the whole clip of her uncrossing and crossing her legs but that would violate fair use. The decision has already been taken not to censor Wiki, so the only question that remains is does that particular image contribute to the article? I personally think it expands upon the textual description, and the arguments against its inclusion don't really make a case against that - they're pushing the 'taste' issue which is the least important in factual documentation of anything. Argol910 13:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It may be worth noting that this is Argol910's only edit, other than uploading a version of the leg-crossing screenshot. —tregoweth (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as a censorship issue - but I do think it's some anon user trying to get the picture in a Wikipedia article, when there's a perfectly good alternative, for his own kicks. I don't see it as a necessity to illustrate Shaon Stone's life or career. The existing picure was fine, and there was no need to change it. The only reason I can see that anyone would want to change it is not to add anything to the article, but because it's a particular type of picture. If that shot appeared in the article about the film, however, I'd have no problem. Stephenb (Talk) 10:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The leg crossing picture WAS the existing image until someone disapproved of it and replaced it with a facial shot. A large portion of the text is devoted to the leg crossing scene and the purpose of the image is to illustrate that. Choosing another image from the interview is good old fashioned censorship because it actually has nothing to do with the scene itself. If you are discussing a scene, then show an image from the actual scene being discussed, not one that comes before or after it and has essentially nothing to do with the text. I cannot believe anyone can seriously suggest that the facial image provides better illustration than the leg crossing image. The leg crossing image provides a much better illustration of the textual description so the article is better for it, and to be fair you can't actually discern her genitalia or any pubic hair from the thumbnail anyway!

213.122.11.23 12:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This is the only edit by this user. —tregoweth (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a picture of the scene should be included, but not necessarily the crucial one. There are enough pics of her with lots of "leg" showing to convey the general image, while the details are given in the text. I wouldn't mind including the fanny shot though, as it is, in this case, the one thing that most people remember of the movie and Sharon Stone. A facial shot is not relevant to the part discussed, and an edited (censored) picture is the worst option of all: either you show what there is to see, or you take a different picture. Using the picture, but hiding the essential part, is a bit stupid. As a reference point: the Janet Jackson article has a pic of her wardrobe malfunctioning as well. Fram 11:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Would this be an effective compromise? Max22 12:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


How many people object to a link to the disputed image

Tregoweth's objection to the screencap of Sharon Stone flashing was the 'principle of least astonishment' - that you don't 'expect to see such an image on the profile. However, he has now started to remove a link to the image which clearly indicates the image's content. This clearly removes the choice of the reader to see the image themselves and surely moves over into censorship. Does anyone else object to a link to the image, or should I initiate proceedings against Tregoweth for vandalism? 213.122.4.145 21:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism for what actually constitutes vandalism. Also, given that all of your various edits revolve around adding a photo showing Sharon Stone's crotch to Sharon Stone, Basic Instinct, and Paul Verhoeven, I don't know how seriously you'll be taken. —tregoweth (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I forgot to add: What, exactly, is the purpose of linking to that image of Sharon Stone? Is it important in aiding one's understanding of her or Basic Instinct? —tregoweth (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Well yes, it's an iconic scene that she has built her career on. Obviously some people will be curious to see exactly just what you do see and if something arouses curiosity then that is as good an argument for including anything on Wiki. The link is clearly marked and readers are forewarned, so what is your problem against allowing them the choice to see view something they might want to see? 81.131.42.194 11:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
        • My problem is that the photo is gratuitous and irrelevant. —tregoweth (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
          • By definition, if you accept that the textual description has a legitimate place on her profile then you are admitting that people may be interested in that particular scene, and many of those people may be interested in seeing a still from the scene in question to see what all the fuss is about. 213.122.8.130 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You may be interested to know that IP addresses hailing from 81.131.- and 213.122- are part of a banned users IP range (User:Argol136). I'd thought I'd let you know as I'm compiling evidence about this currently and found it most interesting that these accounts (which include several sock-puppets) were set up to add pornography to Wikipedia. Being that this guy's been blocked indefinately for consistent violation ofWikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:3RR and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, any of his contributions are actually dis-allowed as per the Wikipedia:Blocking policy anyway. Thanks, Jhamez 00:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jon Stewart

Took out unsourced, irrelevant part about Jon Stewarts alleged opinion that she was trying to promote her movie when she protested for peace in the middleast. This would be better under Jon Stewart's allegations/opinions then a Bio for Sharon stone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.106.231 (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

RC Cola commercial, circa 1975

Several online sources claim Sharon Stone was the actress in that well-known "Me & My RC" commercial, delivering pizza on a skateboard. Can this be verified? Roz666 00:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Razzie Win

I included her golden raspberry award for worst actress but it was deleted because it "wasn't an achievement". As per the Template:Infobox actor it should be included regardless of whether it's an achievement (many actors have refused oscars because they don't believe it's an achievement). The page isn't supposed to be a shrine to her achievements. Any objections? Gr8lyknow 09:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why I removed Image:SharonStoneCannes.jpeg

I removed this image from the article since her pose in the image is weird and silly - not suitable for serious enclypedia. Neither is she recogniseable from the image, nor is there any interesting context. The Merciful 18:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a horrible photo, and very unflattering.68.144.31.71 06:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Birthday?

Is the brithday message meant to be there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharon_Stone&diff=197309032&oldid=197271350 JTBX (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Never Minds just a vandal. JTBX (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection / Razzie Awards

I requested that administrators temporarily protect this page from anonymous edits, due to multiple repeated attempts by anonymous users to simply erase the fact that Sharon Stone has been nominated for numerous "Razzie" awards. These nominations and awards, while not flattering to her, are a valid part of her mark on the world and are worthy of inclusion. The section is well referenced, so it is not subject to rapid deletion under the "biographies of living persons" guidelines. I've added a complete listing of her "positive" awards as well in order to better reflect neutral point of view, so there's no violation there either.

Whoever you are, if you feel this content is legitimately problematic under Wikipedia's guidelines, come out of the shadows and discuss your thinking. If you just are a Sharon Stone fan and don't like the fact that she's had so many Razzie nominations and awards, then your issue is with the Razzie award voters, not with the Wikipedia article that fairly reports the situation. Rnickel (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Residence?

The Reno, Nevada article lists that Stone has a residence in Reno. Can anyone confirm or refute this? The Jade Knight (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fan of Megadeth?

"As a teenager, she worked at a fast food restaurant and she was a big fan of Megadeth.[3]"

This makes no sense. SS was born in 1958. Megadeth formed in 1983. Their first album wasn't released until 1985.

She was 25 when they formed and already doing TV. She was in movies when they released their first album. This is just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.70.136 (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Quick and the Dead"

I removed the following entry:

Stone's stardom was such that she received top billing over Gene Hackman, Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio when cast as a gunslinger for Sam Raimi's 1995 western The Quick and the Dead.

If you can cite a reference regarding this, go ahead and replace it. However, I doubt you'll find a reference that states this is significant, because Crowe and DiCaprio were little-known (in the U.S., in Crowe's case) at the time of that film. It's pretty much a meaningless statement. Not to mention that, as co-producer, Stone likely had the authority to give herself top billing. GuySperanza (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Parenting controversy

I've removed this as Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine and I don't see how a custody battle deserves its own paragraph. --NeilN talk to me 04:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Razzie Awards

Over the years, there have been numerous cycles of inclusion/removal of Sharon Stone's Razzie awards. The latest removal came when the whole awards section was removed and incorporated into filmography, but minus the Razzies. My question is, are Razzie awards notable or not? Not once has the question actually been discussed; it's always just a deletion by some circuitous means. If they're notable, then for God's sake let's leave them in, and if not, then let's take them out, but this government by sneakiness has got to stop.

For the record, here was the latest list of her Razzies in case someone wants to have a go at putting them all back in:

—Rnickel (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ 1987 Razzie Awards
  2. ^ 1993 Razzie Awards
  3. ^ a b 1994 Razzie Awards
  4. ^ 1996 Razzie Awards
  5. ^ 1999 Razzie Awards
  6. ^ a b 2004 Razzie Awards
  7. ^ 2006 Razzie Awards

Implants

A simple google search will verify that she has breast implants, think it would be relevant to list, maybe also with estimated year it occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.136.3 (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Karma

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYoZEn9vlzE

Apparently those 4,000 orphans, thousands of children buried under rubble have done something pretty awful to her "friends" who also suffered huge losses in the quake and have been receiving unrelenting relief efforts by those who "deserved" the karma. It has already caused a "quake" of its own in the blogsphere in Hong Kong, TW and the mainland. Should this be added to controversies?--221.222.228.228 (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


I agree. It is so sad! The surviving children lost there parents and the parents lost there children. I can't believe Sharon Stone would say that. (Strix Struma (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC))


Her controversy comments regarding earthquake in China should be added. She is pubic figure make a public comment in a public place about a tragic event happening in the China. And that give a good reality check for people in China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.111.192.110 (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reminder: This page is only for discussing changes to the article. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 13:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's making light of her comment by saying that she was "asking" if it's karma. It's either a rhetorical question or it's meant as she was thinking about the question. She's obviously not trying to get answers from anybody present there. It's better just to quote the "question" and let the reader decide what to make of it. Gwwfps (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we may add some of her comments (vs Hong Kong Cable TV, Cable Entertainment Channel) on the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/fashion/01stone.html?_r=1&oref=slogin--Csmth (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This is very clear that her word is taken out of context
If her word is taken out of context then why did she need to do all those pr for apologies. Speaker1978 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh my god! You did not really read the link at the nytimes. The so-called apology is a statement made by Dior and Sharon Stone denied it in a very public newspaper. I can assume nearly all American know what is nytimes. I think Wiki should add this material and reflect it because that will distort Sharon Stone original words further.--Csmth (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I decided to added this material on the main page.--203.192.187.2 (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Quoting the question alone would be the most misleading way to present the fact. The first part of the answer only serves for the second part that karma is irrelevant. Her intention of mentioning the first part is making contrast. If the first part is singled out, the whole context would become distorted, as if she is not answering a question. BTW, karma is not retribution: The effect of karma often not returned to the doer. If you pour the water, the floor get wet, that is karma. It does not need you fell to have the karma. I am not sure whether Western people understand the word karma, but even Chinese media (I think intentionally) assume "karma" means retribution. So more explain may be need if a quote is made: There are far too many ways to mislead other readers. --Csmth (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I just read it, it seems she makes no regret for her stupid remarks. Speaker1978 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Sharon Stone’s comments to the Sichuan earthquake recently, as she takes this heavy lost of lives and a humanitarian disaster as a "Karma" for Chinese people’s "wrong deeds".This kind of remarks deeply hurt Chinese people’s feeling and are totally unacceptable.CaiDaJorya (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys should avoid the Chinese type of childish emotions here. And apart from everything mentioned here in the discussion and the main entry, there is another factor: The language and translation and the familiarity (or the unfamiliarity for that matter) about the habits of certain language speakers.
The Chinese were mostly upset about two things, "well, it's interesting", and "is this karma". This whole "Sharon Stone claimed China's earthquake is karma and she said it's interesting" is very unfortunate and unfair to her. There is ultra motives involved in the efforts of people who made these public in the first place. Sharon Stone's only fault was her frankness and speaking her mind. She shouldn't be blamed for that.
Everyone who's familiar with the habit of English speaking in practical daily life should not be mistaken about when SS saying "well, this is interesting," she did not at all referred to the China quake, or in other words she did not say the earthquake happening in China (for karma) is interesting. She only meant to let the listener know that the process of her coming out of that "is this karma" thought turn out to be "interesting" to her. She is saying her thought process about the thing was interesting. The Hong Kong reporter who interviewed her and reported about it in Chinese first ought to be blamed, if not punished. And for your info, days before Sharon Stone making the comments, I was already start hearing from my Chinese friends in China things such as "this is Karma". I don't care if you believe it or not.
Very similar incident at a similar time was CNN's Jack Cafferty comment, and it was for the same reason. Jack Cafferty only hit the truth and he should not be blamed for that. You guys know in daily life when the English speakers comment on international events, they often use phrases such as "The Americans", "The French", "The Japanese" to refer to the governments and the country as a whole and there is nothing to be offended. He did not "insult the people of China" for God sake! So why, while everyone else is fine, should only the Chinese be felt offended? The thing is those Chinese angry youth studying abroad were already on the hunt for their imagined enemies everyday out there anyways. That's because their minds were of victims and losers, and on the top of that they're still crazy with the remnants of Cultural Revolution mentality, so especially in those days around Olympic torch tour, because everyone was blaming China rightfully for their stinking human rights records, they were so sensitive already and everyone who appear to be even a little critical of China would be easily seen as "anti-China". This is a mental health issue at its best. As simple as that.

She also said something about George Bush (it is not very good) in the interview, should I add it? -a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.74.99 (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe so many of you here have the excuse for Stone's "Kamar" comments. Ignorance of westerners are well displayed by some of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.20.108.30 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sharon Stone's Beauty And Eternal Wisdom

Sharon took a risk to show panty-less self in the film Basic Instinct. Sharon Stone was still accepted in the film industry, since what she did was moving toward the pornography industry. Sharon Stone showed her beauty and showed a talent for acting, and including acting in controversial roles such as in the film Basic Instinct. Sharon Stone has done well, showed her beauty, showed her acting, and is now a recognized talent in the entertainment industry.

Well, it's indisputable she showed something.--Buckboard 08:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? I never saw it. Never looked that closely either. FFS, there's oodles of lady bits on the internet.

I have not seen her performance recently. I she retiring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.20.108.30 (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry/lineage

There have been a several edits repeatedly adding the claim that Stone is of Irish and English descent: [1]. The claim is backed up with this source: http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=dowfam3&id=I251968. The source is a geneaology website, and while I have no problem with the website as a reliable source, it is does not directly corroborate the claim about Stone's heritage. It is a collection of records that enables the reader to trace her ancestry. On that basis you can piece together Stone's lineage by searching through her ancestors' records, but I believe this contravenes Wikipedia's policy on source synthesis: WP:SYNTHESIS. The policy states:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."

Since the source does not explicitly make a claim about Stone's lineage, the claim is synthesis on the basis it is pieced together from many ancestry records, and cannot be verified by a reader without tracing her ancestry. I have no objection to including her lineage in the article, but it should be corroborated by a self-contained statement in a reliable source to avoid the synthesis. Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Stone denies third marriage

In an interview Stone recently denied having been married to George Howe Englund:

Stone tells CNN host Piers Morgan, "No I wasn't (married three times). But they say that... They say I was married to this guy that I was never married to or don't even really know.

http://www.imdb.com/news/ns0000002/?date=2011-02-25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.130.4.242 (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sharon Stone was a credited actor in Police Academy 4 released 1987

It appears that there is no mention of the fact she appeared and was credited in appearing in Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol released in 1987. See wikipedia page for the movie (or watch the movie :-)for confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmudcake (talk • contribs) 08:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

High IQ?

I don't know how anyone who reads that "karma" quotation could think that Stone has a 154 IQ. Further evidence that the number is apocryphal is the fact that she lied about membership in Mensa and attending a Mensa school. The IQ reference should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.53.226 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It maybe should be mentioned that she claims to have a high I.Q. and to be a member of Mensa, as she's well-known for making these claims. However, at least one other celebrity who claims to be a member of Mensa (I think it was Asia Carrera, I'll leave it for somebody else to dig up that reference) has stated that Stone's name is not on the membership list. GuySperanza (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC):That's true, I remember reading that too. Mad as box of frogs, that woman. But pretty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.53.226 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, has Stone provided any explanation yet about Yushu earthquake occurly recently in which many Tibetans died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.20.108.30 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Women are unable to receive IQ levels beyond a certain level. SundayRequiem (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

RC Cola Skateboard Commercial

The information on the Advertising campaigns article on the RC Cola page in Wikipedia, I noticed a very big error. Sharon Stone was not the actress who rode the skateboard in the RC Cola commercial titled, "Me and My RC". The actress who was riding the skateboard was Kelly Moran. Sister of Erin Moran of Happy Days. I know for a fact that Kelly has in her possession proof of her being the RC Cola Skateboard girl in that commercial. The article needs to be corrected immediately as this incorrect information is very damaging to Ms. Moran's career. Furthermore, what was the fact/basis of using Sharon Stone's name? Gary Fredrickson (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no reliable citation found online to support the above. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, actually _being_ the primary source counts for less than a link to some random click bait.137.205.183.109 (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Sharon Stone

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Sharon Stone for featured list status here. I'd appreciate it if any of you could take a look and leave your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead photo

I've uploaded several photos from an appearance by Sharon Stone yesterday. I wasn't sure which was best, but given the fact that the lead image previously was a decade old, from 2007, I thought it would be best to go ahead and replace the photo with a much newer one that reflects her current appearance. Above, please see several other photos from the same event. Calibrador (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm definitely not very happy with 1,3, and 4. 2 and 5 is kinda so so. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal life

I wish to know why the Personal life is not sorted in chronological order? The order seen here look really arbitrary, if not a result of manipulation.--Csmth (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know why there are no mentions of Wes Craven? Bulbous (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish to know why there aren't any citations about where Stone grew up. Many local newspapers agree that she did not skip grades or attend college. The article itself says she quit school to go to New York to be a fashion model. I think this whole section should be removed. Also Stone was born and raised in Hagerstown Pa. Just because Meadville is the larger town doesn't mean it should be used instead. 

71.60.97.251 (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)September 19, 2008
I noticed in the bio box that it says 3 adopted children with Bronstein. They divorced in early 2004 and the two young children were adopted after that and only have the last name Stone. Or did I miss something?216.73.231.4 (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Why nothing about the Stone's stroke - subarachnoid haemorrhage - The actress suffered a stroke in September 2001 which left her bleeding into her brain for 11 days ( http://www.contactmusic.com/news-article/stone-speaks-of-stroke-horror ) - and her long and painful, was divorced by her husband during the recovery, but successful recovery? She talks about it during the interview with Larry King http://rt.com/shows/larry-king-now/sharon-stone-744/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarioTW (talk • contribs) 07:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the order is hap hazard. I added that she lived at Bethesda Christian Children home just outside Meadville but someone removed it. I know this as fact because I too was at this home from 1968 to 1972 while my parents were separating. Sharon lived there during that same time but was already there when I got there and still there when I left. She dated Lanny Barr who lived there too and was about 4 years older than her. I can't cite my sources because I am the source. She was in the dorms with (I Think) Mrs. Ore as the house mother. If her birth date is correct then she must have been moved ahead in grades because she was in my sisters classes (3 years older than me) and yet she is a year younger than me.2605:A000:F485:C700:55B4:EA5:7D46:D3DB (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Birth

She was born in Meadville, PA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C400:8C80:FC01:BBB3:D83F:C8B1 (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Redundant Reference?

Well you know it was very interesting because at first, you know, I'm not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don't think anyone should be unkind to anyone else. And so I have been very concerned about how to think and what to do about that because I don't like that. And I had been this, you know, concerned about, oh how should we deal with the Olympics because they are not being nice to the Dalai Lama, who is a good friend of mine. And then this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and then I thought, is that Karma? When you're not nice then the bad things happen to you?[92]

One of China's biggest cinema chains reacted to Stone's comments by declaring it would not show her films in its theaters.[93] The founder of the UME Cineplex chain and the chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Filmmakers, Ng See-Yuen, called Stone's comments "inappropriate", and said the UME Cineplex chain would no longer present her films.[93]

Is reference #92 necessary? It's dead and redundant. Doesn't #93 serves its purpose?

Second, should "Karma" be capitalized? It's lower case in the quotation and in WP. Gprobins (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

CelebritiesFans

  • "Sharon Stone". celebritiesfans.com. Rosen Enterprises and YGA sites Ltd. 2005-12-10. Archived from the original on 2005-12-10. Retrieved 2 June 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Literary and Cultural Heritage Map of Pennsylvania - The Pennsylvania Center for the Book

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Move Sharon was in that is not listed

Sharon Stone starred in Beyond The Stars with Martin Sheen and Christian Slater in 1989. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_Stars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.65.200 (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Angela Rayner

Is Angela Rayner Growlergate notable enough as showing the influence of Sharon Stone internationally?

twitter Sharon%20Stone%22%20%22Angela%20Rayner%22

https://abcnews.go.com/International/sexism-row-erupts-uk-parliament-basic-instinct-article/story?id=84311807

Anyone who knows how to edit can find lots on this in England.

Htrowsle (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Early Life and Education

Doesn't add up. If she entered second grade at age 5, then she'd likely finish high school in 1974 (age 16), not 1975.

Further, we need clarification on college scholarship at age 15. Probably not the age she matriculated. But even if it's meant as the age of receiving the scholarship, it seems odd. Her birthday is in March and admission letters were mailed in April back then, so she was probably 16 when she received it.

Generally, though, this section is using a talk show interview and other casual publications as evidence. Need WP:RS. Martindo (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The talk show interview was Jan 10, 1999:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0611287/
but I'm not sure this is WP:RS -- people often make errors in recollection (or exaggerate their history) on these shows. Martindo (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
IMDb is not considered reliable for use in Wikipedia articles. WP:IMDB Eddie Blick (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
That's only to show the date of the interview. IMO, the whole interview is unreliable, as are similar interviews. Martindo (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharon_Stone/Archive_1&oldid=1166983140"