Talk:Sharon Stone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Sharon Stone.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sharon Stone article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

meadville isnt really "outside of pittsburgh" any more than albany is "outside" of NYC.. its like halfway between pitt and erie, atleast an hours drive to pittsburgh, 45 mins to erie

Contents

[edit] Sharon Stone's Beauty

Sharon Stone 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] Request for More Info on Beliefs

The article mentions Stone being first a Scientologist and then a Buddhist. I recall seeing a television news story about Stone delivering her first sermon at San Francisco's Glide Memorial United Methodist Church. Can anyone provide more info not only about Stone's past and present religious affiliations, but also about her practice and promotion of spiritual beliefs? User:GnatsFriend

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Style and Grammer

This article has some serious grammatical errors that detract from its credibility; some sentences are worded strangely and don't make sense. In addition, this article also has stylistic issues in tone that are not generally appropriate for an encyclopedia article. It is recommended that the person(s) who authored the article address these issues in order to construe a more credible article.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)


[edit] 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)