Talk:Haley Joel Osment

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

Untitled[edit]

Wasn't he also cast as an extra for "Weird Al" Yankovic's "Amish Paradise" video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.206.239 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)‎[reply]

Please sign your posts (wp:sign). -- AstroU (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answered? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I work in the videogames industry, but I still feel that the reference to Kingdom Hearts in the first paragraph is a bit unwarranted, given the relative obscurity of those games compared to his movie work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.94.34 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That and the fact that he's doing to voice for Vanitas hasn't been officially announced yet, so someone should edit that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.248.181 (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if HJO is the youngest person to receive an acting Oscar nomination? If so, I think this should be noted on the page. --QQQ (10-19-05)

Looking it up he's not. Justin Henry was aged 8 when he was nominated for best supporting actor, in Kramer vs. Kramer. Brandon De Wilde from Shane was approximately the same age as Osment.[1].--T. Anthony 07:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, thanks for the information. --QQQ (11-18-05)

I think Tatum O'Neal in Paper Moon (film) was the youngest. 71.199.123.24 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was Shirley Temple who won the Academy Juvenile Award in 1934, at the age of 6. The award was created especially for her. The AJA continued to be awarded up until 1960, but out of 12 recipients, Temple holds the record as the youngest actor or actress to ever receive an Academy Award or be nominated for it. --80.187.113.170 (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a newer photo of him available? Iceberg3k 16:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There sure is: http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/20/people.osment.ap/index.html 74.71.41.15 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source this please[edit]

I dispute the first part of this paragraph. Please supply a source for it.

"His family is Roman Catholic and attend Sunday Mass; they even attended Mass on the afternoon of the Oscar telecast when Haley was nominated for Best Support Actor (for The Sixth Sense); he lost to Michael Caine." Grace Note 01:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haley Joel Osment madness[edit]

Is it true that Haley Joel Osment showed signs of mental instability due to the frightening scenes of the movies he performed?

I would lean towards a "No" in answering that one Mad Jack 22:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how would you call it if he saw a deceased Bruce Willis? ;) --80.187.113.170 (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only Bruce Willis's character was dead. He himself was (and is) very much alive. I doubt that it spooked him out very much. Kostaki mou (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1995 Saturn?[edit]

Why is a successfully 18 year old actor with so many credits (and presumably money in trust) driving a 1995 Saturn at 1am? I understand a money management but this sounds like he's downright poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.78.52 (talk • contribs)

That struck me as odd, too, when I heard it on the radio this morning. But maybe he just ascribes to the Warren Buffett school of frugality. -- Coneslayer 22:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible, because of his start as a youth, his parents are pulling the same type of control that M. Caulkin faced, ending up having to sue his parents for the money that was rightfully his in the first place. If not, I commend his parents for teaching him that content in life doesn't revolve around all that is trend setting, glamorous and oppulent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anokajaks (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 July 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]
That's not the only thing that seems to suggest his budget is tight, but see my note/question below. 216.165.24.22 05:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I particularly want to start a flame war here, but I find that comment bordering on the ridiculously offensive. The powers that be forfend that a young movie star should drive a reasonable, probably fuel-efficient, and most importantly (given what happened), *safe* vehicle instead of a flashy sports car or luxury SUV...I drive a 1996 Nissan Sentra that gets great mileage and almost never needs maintenance. Does that make me "poor"? I would say you have a few dangerous notions about wealth and vehicular travel, myself. Faseidman 17:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent picture[edit]

I didn't see one in the news story about him. Only the old pic of him is here, too. Anomo 01:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of pictures, that mugshot was not taken on August 30th. It was most likely taken on the 17th or 18th. Findlaw lists the charges against him as having been submitted on August 17th, so the photo was probably taken that day or the next. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ent/osment81706duipot3.html But not the 30th: Haley was already in New York by that time. Access Hollywood was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincoln McPieflag (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 September 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

Current Education[edit]

Osment is currently attending NYU, and I wanted to ask: would it be proper Wikipedia form to include specifics? (I am a student of NYU, and I'm thinking it might be inappropriate to go further than to say he's a student, but I want to know if the other Wikipedia-goers would favor more info, or if they'd rather be less paparazzi-like.) 216.165.24.22 05:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics like exactly what classes he is taking, what grades he gets, who he might fancy in college? So where exactly does the invasion of privacy begin? There is too much useless and incorrect information listed here as it is. I think it is enough to know he is attending NYU, and in four years time, it can be updated again with whatever degree he has earned. His personal journey of how he got to that degree is not important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.176.183 (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2006‎ (UTC

No, not those specifics. Less... specific specifics. I don't know the intimate details of his life, and, unless we happen to become friends, I don't care to. I'll out and say it, and if you feel it's too far, feel free to edit it out of this comment: He is, unlike other various well-knowns here, living in a first-year dorm with all the other students, and even has a roommate. It just seems odd to me; you'd think a big-name with money would use it to their advantage and at least get a room of their own, and more likely get themselves their own personal off-campus living space. 216.165.24.93 17:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like he just wants to be thought of as a normal college student, and wants to experience normal college life. To be accepted as a regular person, and not just some Hollywood movie star. He does not seem the type that would flaunt his celebrity.

Possible and probable, but still quite uncommon, and an interesting bit of information. Or so I thought, anyway. 216.165.24.93 04:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell did Haley get admitted to NYU in spite of all the legal woes he's going through? I find it hard to believe that NYU was oblivious to all of Haley's legal problems. I've lost a bit of respect for NYU for admitting a kid whose legal issues are currently pending. It sends the wrong message that as long as you're super-smart (or in Haley's case, extremely wealthy or famous), then you can get anything you want. This is similar to the Kaavya Viswanathan incident, where she was caught RED-HANDED plagiarizing, yet Harvard decided to not only readmit her, but give her a position as STUDENT ADVISER.

These people grew up in a life of privilege and they NEVER understood what it means to be punished for the mistakes you made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.176.183 (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also: a DUI and marijuana possession. Bad? Yes. Horrible enough to prevent admission? No. I'm sure the Olsen twins have done worse in their time here, and other students probably have as well. This is a place where a lot of people, myself not included, have a lot of money, and teens and young adults with a lot of money get into things that they probably shouldn't. Also, consider the environment. I'd be surprised if someone with such relatively small drug charges wasn't accepted. Keep in mind, too, that he was arrested after being accepted. I'm sure they could have gone back on it, but... well, I've already said all I can. I'm just a student, and I can't really tell you much about NYU's admission policies. 216.165.24.93 17:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to rethink your elitist attitude towards higher education, myself. First off, you have no evidence of any sort that Osment grew up in a life of privilege - the article only mentions that he went to prep school, which does not "a life of privilege" make. Second, while I don't condone life-threatening accidents under the influence in any way...in the grand scheme of young Hollywood stars, I find this pretty minor. See under River Phoenix for an example of a *real* substance abuse problem by a young Hollywood star that had far worse consequences. I live in Los Angeles and have two parents in the movie business - given what I know about how young Hollywood operates, I'd say Haley did pretty well by not being found dead and pinned under the car with an eight-ball of coke, as opposed to being found with relatively minor injuries and possession of a drug that a great deal of young people (in my experiece) feel shouldn't even be criminal in the first place. NYU is perfectly within their rights to forgive Haley some young indiscretions and allow him the chance to continue his education - and while you're within yours to state logical fallacies based on a punishing attitude, I can't say you've particularly convinced me of anything here. Faseidman 18:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a lot of things that were discussed above are rather private, irrelevant, or too excessive for a Wikipedia article. However, his college majors and his actual degree could be relevant. As would be the fact that the drug he was charged with was just pot, not coke, crack, or crystal. --80.187.113.170 (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hjomugshot.jpg[edit]

Image:Hjomugshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related???[edit]

I was just wondering if Haley Joel Osment has any relation to Emily Osment from Hannah Montana? They look quiet similar and I think they're sibilings. I'm not sure though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.20.222 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (wow, short answer). --ZSoraz 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template on front page[edit]

What does this template mean by Years Active? Years Haley has been active in acting? I don't get it, please clarify the template's meaning. --Mjrmtg (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make of car driven during accident[edit]

Let's try to get consensus on this ridiculous issue of whether to mention the make of the car Osment was driving when he got into an accident. From this edit, OddibeKerfeld is clearly trying to poke fun that Osment was driving only a Saturn. It's a silly level of detail that does not warrant mention in this article. I already cleaned this article up once because half the article had been turned into a police report. Let's be serious. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now fully protected so as to enforce discussion, instead of WP:3RR blocks. Come to a consensus here please. Thankyou. Woody (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While some might think his car was "funny" I simply wanted to include it because it is a fact. Many reporters and bloggers did raise it as an unusual car for a movie star to be driving. I guess if he had been driving a mule team it shouldn't be mentioned either? I guess we shouldn't say he had a DUI or that it occured in California. Should we just say he had a wreck? I think the details should be included, but I won't threaten anyone over it. Geez. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show me a reliable source where the make of his car was mentioned as a notable fact, please do. The rest of your argument is a classic straw man. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MSNBC included it in their story as did most media outlets. I think they are a reliable source. [2] TMZ and others also included the fact it was a 1995 Saturn. I think your argument is classic tin man ;) OddibeKerfeld (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean anyone that made particular mention of the car. Like your original "pundits" edit referred to. Otherwise, it's just a level of detail that is not necessary and not appropriate for this article. WP:BLP/WP:NPOV. Using half an article to describe one DUI incident is like saying that half his life was defined by the DUI. That may be appropriate for Darryl Strawberry since a lot of people only know him for the dozen or so arrests and legal run-ins, but it's not for a single one-car, one-person DUI accident. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I did was add the Saturn. It sounds like you are making a case for getting rid of the DUI altogether. That's an entirely different debate. The sites with the particular mention by your criteria are all blogs and humor sites, though Joe Scarborough and Keith Olbermann seem to have mentioned it on their shows. Do you not see the irony in a famous Hollywood celebrity driving a common car and yet still getting in an alcohol induced wreck? Maybe we should sanitize this article so it only has items that his publicist might put out? Either way, no one else in the world seems to care. I vote for keeping this page locked to prevent anyone from adding anything else to it. Thanks for your tireless devotion and personal sacrifice for wikipedia. :) OddibeKerfeld (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full-protection is out of the question and against the core foundation of wikipedia. The point is that people see the irony, it is just not appropriate in an Encyclopedia article. Woody (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, your argument is straw man. You're saying that I want the entire DUI mention gone, but I don't and I never said that. It just needs to be given due weight in the article. When half the article becomes a police report, it's as though it were the most important event that ever happened to the guy. I hope we can agree that that's not true. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thanks again for being a wiki czar. How do you do it? I can't find enough time in my schedule to do what you do. Thanks. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, I figured the personal attacks would have started earlier but I guess this timing is close to expected. Ease up or you'll find yourself blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attacks? I'm being honest. I think it's awesome that you do so much for wiki. I wish I could, but I simply don't have the time what with work, family, friends, and other demands. Sorry you took it as an attack. That's the problem with the written word. You don't hear tone of voice, inflection, etc. No need to threaten anyone with blocks. I'm sorry you think I was trying to offend. I mean it when I say you are a true wiki czar and that I thank you for your devotion and personal (and I'm sure often painstaking) sacrifice you make for the site. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious what the intent of the "many pundits..." edit was, and I think it's safe to say that violated WP:NPOV, so it was good form to remove it from the article. Lacinius (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality vandalism[edit]

In the past week, there have been eight (thus far) attempts to vandalize this article with purported claims quoting a perezhilton.com article "outing" HJO. I attempted to have the page protected, but without success, as the number of vandalizing edits was deemed insufficient. The rightful reversions of this vandalism have, for the most part, stated that the reason for reversion was that perezhilton.com is not a reliable source and that something more reliable must be provided before allowing such an edit, particularly about a living person. I would like to point out that the "citation" of a perezhilton.com article is itself false. There IS no perezhilton article with either the date or the topic relating to HJO. Unreliable as a real article from perezhilton.com would be, a FAKE article from that source is not only far more dangerous as a citation, but prima facie evidence of the bad faith of the unregistered user who keeps posting this vandalism. I hope protection can be achieved soon, once enough damage has been done to justify it in the eyes of the administrators, but until then, please keep in mind that these are bad faith edits, not merely poorly sourced good-faith edits. Monkeyzpop (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did got to that website, not knowing what to expect. I half expected to get a virus. The site does look pretty trashy, I looked at the articles on the front page and didn't see any about HJO. --Mjrmtg (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I protected it for a week, it is completely unacceptable per the biographies of living persons. Woody (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

[3] was vandalism the birthdate was made wrong. The other changes i don't know about. Could somebody change it? Greetings, NL_Bas (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Career[edit]

I know Osment has been in college but he hasn't done much acting over the past 4 or 5 years except voice work for video games. Is he taking a break or given up acting? This is not a judgment, I just thought maybe he had moved on to do something else with his life. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Haley Joel Osment. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 21:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Haley Joel Osment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haley_Joel_Osment&oldid=1207717263"