Jump to content

Talk:Sharon Osbourne/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Reference to Sharon Osbourne's death

I have removed references to Sharon Osbourne's death on the article, as I can't find any other reference to her 'death' on the 6 January 2012.

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PoV tag?

You really shouldn't add a PoV tag without starting a discussion section detailing why you added it.

Personally, I'd say the only part of the Iron Maiden section that needs reworking for NPoV is the last paragraph, as saying that Sharon came off the worst is definitely PoV and has no cite.

The rest of it can be cited rather easily by sources like the MTV article. --Rosicrucian 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the passage that lacked a cite, and the PoV tag with it. If there are future disputes on NPoV, please discuss them here before slapping a PoV tag on a section. --Rosicrucian 15:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Vagina Monologues

Sharon Osbourne will be playing a role in the UK version of The Vagina Monologues, should i add this, or does someone else want to add it. Is it relevant? Dessydes 04:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Better picture of Sharon?

Is there not a better uncopyrighted picture out there that will do Sharon a bit more justice? The pic with her and Ozzy is a bit.. naff?

Cheers

Brad

Any chance?

Any chance this link could be added to Sharon's 'External Links'?

Thank you =)

Iron Maiden Vs. Sharon

That article is disgusting and biased. Whoever wrote it should actually consider editing it in a more mutual tone.

Agreed, the Iron Maiden article has three short paragraphs on the inicdent, this one has around 10 drawm out bias ones.

i.e. This is a nice resume for Mrs. Osbourne and a horrible encyclopedia entry for Wikipedia.

Revision?

IMHO this article probably needs to be extentively revised.

The image should in all honesty be replaced by the shot taken for the cover of her biography. This one for instance: http://www.pcp-agency.com/2006/images/thumbs/sharon_osbourne.jpg

I suspect this would fall into the category of fair use.

Another aspect is restructuring:

  • The introduction should be kept a lot more general, giving a short overview of her career as manager, personal life and television presonality. The financial stuff might be better in a seperate section under 'Wealth'.
  • Something maybe needs to be said about her childhood, somebody who has read her autobiography could probably say more about that.
  • The marriage to Osbourne should probably be expanded somewhat with a stub reference to the singers page. It should probably mention the three children, the fact that she is his second wife, some of the problems (alcoholism, drug abuse, violence and personal injury) and how she has grown to prominence over the past few years.
  • Three decades of management probably needs to be mentioned with the enstrangement from her father (cross-referenced to his page), Ozzy Osbourne's career, inception of Ozzfest (cross-referenced), other bands she had manged.
  • Notoriety - as is widely known her managerial talents were somewhat controversial and contine to this day. It should really be just a run-down as there are quite a number of them and it would probably too much to mention them all. The Maiden incident should really be dealt with in the Ozzfest context. I would suggest creating a one-line reference with a stub-link.
  • Health – can pretty much stay as-is although maybe a little less disjointed. A quote can probably be used to reference her struggle with her weight dating back to the early eighties. The rest seems pretty accurate – it might need to be updated.
  • Personal Wealth – by removing the Sunday Times reference to here the introduction would probably look a lot cleaner. The rest should probably be sparsely referenced in relation to the management, income generated from TV work and personal appearances. The break-in from a few years ago where her jewellery was stolen might merit a mention – not sure.
  • Charity Work – her foundation concerning cancer and the donation mention in the introduction can be moved here. Also maybe items that she had auctioned off.
  • Trivia – not sure about this section. Yes, she features on Dead Ringers but that probably should feature in the section for the program itself. Other Appearances should maybe be moved here where the Vagina Monologues can be mentioned; she also mentions in the Guardian interview from last Saturday that she has a role in a film. There are probably also a number of Ozzy related overview programs where she features.

Would be intersted to hear people's ideas. (Karst 16:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

This seems like something important that was omitted--From the Don Arden bio page, "In 1979, one of Arden's successes Black Sabbath sacked their vocalist Ozzy Osbourne. Arden's daughter Sharon began to date Ozzy, and took over his management from her father. Don Arden was livid. Reportedly, the next time Sharon visited Don, his vicious pet dogs savaged her. She was pregnant, and lost the child. Sharon eventually married Ozzy and had no contact with her father for 20 years." xtian5 June 2007

$US20,000 ?

Why isn't donating $US20,000 (£10,000) prominently reported?

Perhaps the author wants to show that Sharon is a cheapskate. (She isn't)

Sharon's actions against some critics

I'm having a discussion with Eagle Owl about the appropriate place to put the information about Sharon's posting of packaged excrement to some critics (see below). I don't think it's trivia, it seems far more fundamental to our understanding than that. It could be mental health, but it doesn't look right next to the information about her cancers and so on. Eagle Owl feels quite attached to this entry generally, and I don't want to upset him by engaging in some sort of edit/re-edit, but I think this needs to be elsewhere than trivia.

Suggestions?

"Sharon Osbourne was quoted in the Guardian newspaper on 9th December 2006 [22] as having sent her own excrement on more than one occasion to people she felt had unreasonably criticised her or her family."

Talking of trivia, isn't this an example? Why isn't it under 'trivia'? I suggest we move it there.

"Sharon Osbourne is responsible for the livelihood of 12 dogs and employs a dog walker named Cherie"

This whole section was removed, but is unsigned by the contributors who added it. However, I have still reverted the blank. It wasn't myself who had previously added this information.Eagle Owl 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Another report states that she sent her family's faeces as well, including that of her children. [User:88.110.191.245]

who gives a shit?65.43.211.192 16:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for that contribution. Very valuable. User:88.110.191.245
Someone seems to have removed this rather interesting and telling fact from Sharon Osbourne's record. I've restored it. I think it tells us something useful about her character.

92.20.237.7 (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sharon wasn't at the mansion when the fire happened

Hi, I'm sure others also remember that on X Factor she recieved a phone call saying her home was on fire, while she was in auditions, therefore, she wasn't in the mansion. Chris as I am Chris 01:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    • That's right, I remember now. She had to leave the X Factor auditions as Kelly was in the house when it happened. It's rather odd for BBC News to get it wrong. When I've got time, I'll try and find a ref for it. Eagle Owl 09:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Here's a ref http://www.guardian.co.uk/friday_review/story/0,3605,495951,00.html

This looks like a good ref. When I've got time I'll search through it and get all the good info. Many thanks. Eagle Owl 17:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The reference was brilliant and therefore I could add loads more information to the article. I think the article looks much better now. Eagle Owl 16:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with Iron Maiden

Does this really deserve its own section? i mean come on, sharon has had incidents out the butthole with 100's of people.

I was thinking about the same issue. Compared to what it was (about ten long paragraphs), it's looking a lot better. We could possibly move the content from the Iron Maiden heading under Incidents in Personal Life. Any other suggestions? Eagle Owl 13:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The incident with Iron Maiden at Ozzfest shouldn't be under personal life, if anything other than its own heading it would be under professional life as Ozzfest is pretty much promoted and organised by Sharon. However, I do believe it should remain under its own heading, as such despicable and unprofessional behaviour should be highlighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.116.201 (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jewish?

In the grand Wikipedia tradition of obsessing about ethnicity, an anon is repeatedly adding Shazza to Category:English Jews. Is this in any way applicable? (Same anon is doing the same thing at Natasha Kaplinsky, incidentally, apparently using the same reasoning that Jewish father => "Jewish background" => Jew -- regardless of non-Jewish mother, lack of self-identification as a Jew, much less, of course, any notability relating to Jewishness.) Alai 21:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And also here i have sourced it, and again its about ethnicity only so that she can be on both"english jews" and "people of irish descent in great britain". It doesn't have to be one against the other.
Of course it doesn't have to be one or the other: that's not at all what I'm saying. (Back-dating someone's ethnic identity could expand endlessly by this route, mind you.) Rather, it's whether she "qualifies" as such by any commonly-used definition, and so far as I can see, neither of the individuals concerned actually do. (From your TLD I'd assume I don't really need to point you to Who is a Jew?, but that covers the main points.) Perhaps what you're really looking for is a "Jewish descent" category: I've raised that a point over at WikiProject Judaism; they may be able to share the results of past thinking on such categorisation issues. And thank you for the reference on 'Tash K., which is always a useful addition, though in that case it just confirms the facts as I summarised them, not the basis for addition of the category. Alai 06:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Who is a Jew?" good question, and everyone would answer you from his or her point of veiw, but in this case she is half jewish half irish by origin, and that is why i think she should belong to both categories.

If we are not entirely sure, then we should leave the category out of the article. Eagle Owl 20:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'm pretty sure. She's not a Jew by her definition, Liberal Judaism's definition's, or by Orthodox Judaism's definition. The category does not say "half Jewish", nor does it specify some yet other criteria. Alai 23:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Birth name

What on earth is "nee Levy previously Arden" supposed to mean? Nee refers to her maiden name before marriage and Osborne was her first husband. So she was either nee Levy or nee Arden. Her father "changed his name" to Arden in 1944, eight years before Sharon was born. If he just ad hoc called himself Arden then Sharon would have been born and registered Levy. If however he took legal steps to change his name then Sharon would be born Arden, and the Levy identity should not even be linked to her.

If Sharon was born Levy but was known as Arden then the opening statement in the lead should reflect that as in "Nee Levy but known as Arden" Does anybody know which is correct? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Burglary incident

Under "Incidents", a "burglary" (sic) is described - in which Ozzy headlocks the burglar. It's not generally considered "burglary" when the resident is present; that's technically ROBBERY in the US ('home invasion' here in Canada). I don't know enough of the details of the incident to feel comfortable changing this section, but this really should be cleaned up. Grndrush (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's actually home invasion in the US, too. 64.45.250.225 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity Apprentice 3?

Is Sharon appearing on Celebrity Apprentice 3?--Cooly123 23:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Alternative message

No mention of her addressing the alternative christmas message in 2002 for channel 4.--Cooly123 17:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?

Is she really going to be hosting a version of Millionaire at any time? I can't really find anything from any reliable sources. Tataki13 (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Male gender mutilation

Since it is somewhat controversial I added her little outburst about male gender mutilation, but if people could locate more reliable sources or look over the grammar of it I would be grateful, I am not a native english speaker but I do think it is noteworthy enough to be included. 81.226.213.206 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks absolutely fine to me. I noticed the reported sending shit incident(s)...is Sharon completely well? 92.23.92.91 (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Lengthy Twitter comments

Do we really to show detailed tweets between Sharon and Remini on the main article? So much for "encyclopedic". I, for one, don't need the script. — WylieCoyote (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Abortion"

Sharon is described as "having an abortion." She's then described as regretting this "procedure." Several problems are implicated here.

1) Abortions aren't "had," "gotten," "performed," or "provided." Abortions are wreaked, inflicted, committed, and perpetrated.

2) Those who wreak, inflict, commit, and perpetrate "abortions" (rather: surgical or pharmaceutical infanticides) aren't to be honored with the name of doctors. Rather, as they've renounced their Hippocratic calling to do no harm, they're to be called surgical hitmen or pharmaceutical hitmen or, alternatively, surgical terrorists or pharmaceutical terrorists.

3) Nor are those who hire surgical/pharmaceutical hitmen/terrorists to be called "victims." They're co-conspirators.

4) Surgical or pharmaceutical infanticide isn't a "procedure." Rather, it's premeditated murder. For example, the surgical method of this infanticide involves intentionally crushed skulls, liquified brains, limbs torn apart and trashed, and much blood flowing from the most innocent and defenseless citizens - in utero infants - possible.

Putting it all together, we get something like this:

"Jane and Tom, being no better than the very worst Nazis, took out a contract on their baby's life by hiring a surgical hitman to commit infanticide."

Or:

"Shaquilla, consistent with her status of being no better than the worst Nazi, is considering hiring a hitman to perpetrate surgical infanticide."

In other words, let's stop whitewashing the horror.

"A country that legalizes the murder of its own children is doomed."

-Dietrich von Hildebrand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.117.127 (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Sharon Osbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharon_Osbourne/Archive_1&oldid=1029658149"