| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tom Cruise article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
Child Born?
Lets have it documented right here, right now, first on Wikipedia before any news agency... Breaking news that Tom and Katie are having their baby right now as I type this, in a hospital in Toledo. (according to people I know at the hospital) Grandeandy 20:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- You should send this earth-shattering information to the National Enquirer at once! Why allow them to scoop you? And besides, how are you sure it's actually "the" Katie Holmes giving birth? Did you see anyone carrying in signs to the hospital, saying "QUIET ON THE SET" or anything like that? -- Jalabi99 09:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Sequencing
This needs editing for continuity: There's a reference to someone called "Holmes" and several paragraphs later an explanation and link. Some of the Scientology material is repeated. Perhaps it could begin with a chronological biography from birth to the present day.- Hugh7 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Elemental, dear Watson.
Sex appeal drop?
"The drop follows Cruise’s controversial publicity tour for the release of “War Of The Worlds” and his engagement to actress Katie Holmes."
This sentence appears to be a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc as it insinuates the subjects listed are the cause of his decline in popularity. It's easy to believe that this is true, but you can't claim that Scientology/Holmes/etc. is the cause of his decline simply because it occured after those events. Not without citation to proof, anyway. Thoughts? --ndc 05:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have reworded this Glen Stollery (My contributions) 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Sexuality
Is this an encyclopedia or People magazine? If you went back through the man's decades long career and archived every tabloid situation he was in, you would cost wikipedia hundreds of dollars in hard-drive space. --Aufidius 4 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to mention the rumors regarding his sexuality? Not to make a judgement, of course, but to acknowledge their persistence? --Feitclub 04:50, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Right, I'm bloody removing it. I just looked at this page while watching Vanilla Sky, and that first statement made me sick. 203.122.228.168 12:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"As a sex symbol, Cruise's physique has been subject to close scrutiny of the media. While many fans contend that his smile is one of his most notable features, one of his upper front incisors is off-color, and he started wearing braces in 2002. (He removes them during filming.)"
- I don't know if this was put in as a joke or not, but for a general article of this length, it's just bizarre and irrelevent trivia. So I've removed it. Palefire 15:30, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Seems to have gone back in the article - this time I've let the bit about the braces stay (excusable now that it's in a triva section), but the "off-colour front incisor" is just stupid. There's no excuse for that in an encyclopedia article - next we'll be talking about the rate of growth of his armpit hair. Palefire 17:51, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it's become more and more common for celebrities to have their incisors elongated with a ceramic composite that covers the entire tooth. It's supposed to give the person a more dominant look, and it's possible that Criuse had this done, and the color wasn't matched exactly right. Why do Cruise's incisors look normal before he did "Legend"? 29 Jan 2006
Why doesn't he just come out of the closet? Dr. Cash 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Assertion that rings false
"Although a licensed private pilot, standing at only 5′ 7″ (170 cm) Cruise is actually too short to have been a U.S. Navy pilot he portrayed in his breakout movie Top Gun. The Navy requires its pilots be at least 5′ 8″."
This assertion sounds like it's probably false. The navy requires its pilots to be a certain minimum height? Why? I'd like to see a cite for that. It might make sense for them to have a certain maximum height or weight, which I think they do. But minimum height doesn't make sense beyond being able to reach floor pedals, which I'm sure a 5'7" person could do. From this page, we find somebody apparently pasting a Navy requirements manual. The height strictures are 58 inches to 78 inches, with variations in rules for sitting heights and for different particular aircraft. It's possible that the particular jet Cruise's character flew had a specific minimum height requirement of 5'8", but that doesn't seem particularly likely since the heights between 64" and 78" are "most likely anthropometrically compatible" with most planes. (Cruise's 5'7" is 67 inches, well above the minimum of 58 inches and also within the range of likely compatibility for most planes.) If this assertion is going to be in the article, it's going to need a cite. It sounds like an ill-researched factoid. Mr. Billion 08:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- It is 5'8".
- http://www.afrotc.com/admissions/physicalReq.php
- However, in some instances (as far as I am aware) the absolute min. standing height is 64 inches, and a particular sitting height. I belive that as long as his character met all other requirements, he would have been accepted.
- Those sources provided are for the Air Force...not the navy. Smart Guy.
Regardless of the links provided, you're clearly interpreting "58 (inches)" as "5'8" (5 feet, 8 inches)." The height requirement does not differentiate between sex, so a male of 58 inches (or 4 feet, 10 inches) could join with the Air Force.
User:Tristam 10:35 p.m., 12 March 2006 (GMT - 8:00)
scientology
there is much criticism of him due to his membership in scientology. i think this should be mentioned in the article.
- I think this criticism belongs in the Scientology article. But there were two long paragraphs about how Cruise loves Scientology and how wonderful he thinks it is. This strikes me as exceedingly POV and doesn't belong in the article. I have cut it to a basic NPOV paragraph. Shoaler 16:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Cruise is arguably Hollywood's most prominent Scientologist. Far from being a peripheral (or private) aspect of his life, he has been quite outspoken in his beliefs — and he has even criticized non-Scientologist celebrities (like Brooke Shields) for not following church doctrine. This certainly belongs in the entry. Sandover 16:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. But the former text sounded like an ad for the CoS. Why don't you add something along the line that you're suggesting? Shoaler 17:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Done. Sandover 18:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Law suit
So far as I know the phrase "defaulted on the law suit" has no legal meaning. What happened? And it isn't clear who was suing whom.
- "Defaulted on the law suit" most certainly has legal meaning, albeit somewhat awkwardly phrased. The person is referencing a default judgment, which occurs when one party fails to respond to a summons or appear or present pleadings. That is exactly what occured in the case in question. The defendant -- whom Cruise sued for defamation -- failed to appear and the court entered judgment for Cruise. 66.81.246.233 05:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Oprah section
The Oprah appearance seems to be too prominently featured already, and the suggestion to the effect that he won't be considered for major roles because of is risible. I may underestimate the importance of the appearance, but I can't believe it rates more highly than a marriage and divorce, previous film roles, etc. --Mister Tattle 02:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It reads too much like gossip in that section. It's going to be irrelevant a few months down the road. --Madchester June 28, 2005 21:19 (UTC)
I disagree. The Oprah interview sparked off the current ridicule Tom is experiencing in the media. Leaving that out would be like writing an article on Michael Jackson and omitting information on the whole Martin Bashir interview. Cruise's outspoken beliefs and mainstream society's suspicion of his beliefs are a major part of his public image and persona.
pov moved from article
This was in the article, but it's horribly biased. If the incident is worth having in the article, could someone NPOV? Thanks. --W(t) 23:49, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
- On June 24, 2005, Tom Cruise lashed out at Matt Lauer on the Today Show spurting accusations that Lauer was "glib" when addressing antidepressants and Ritalin. Cruise declared himself an expert on the subject and sidestepped Lauer's questions about Scientology by saying that Lauer was not qualified to talk about such matters, because he had not read the research papers that Cruise claimed to have read. It is worth noting that Cruise himself has only a high school education, with no medical training. His ability to evaluate research papers is questionable at best.
I've NPOV'ed it. Is it OK? Deus Ex 00:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bateman
Does Tom Cruise actually live in the same building as Patrick Bateman?
Added some more information regarding the homosexuality rumors. I am new at this Wikipedia and am still learning... so I'm not sure my contribution is quite up to par with standards but I did my best. Someone might want to go in and clean it up a bit though. --kms
Assault
Anyone else hear about those people who squirted him with water? When I think of assault I think of wailing on someone with a plank, not squirting an actor in possession tens of millions of dollars with water. What are we coming to where its the same thing to squirt someone with water as knock someone out? Redwolf24 3 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)
- Assault in American civil law includes any unpermitted contact. It need not inflict serious injury nor be violent. Hitting someone with a cream pie or pinching someone's fanny would be sufficient. There's also a civil tort known as "offensive touching," which could include poking or stroking someone without their permission. This is an old concept in common law and has nothing to do with the person's celebrity status. Patting a waitress on her fanny -- e.g. "copping a feel" -- could subject one to civil damages. The amount of monetary damages would be less than a more serious assault, e.g. "wailing someone with a plank" (love that term). 66.81.246.233 05:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I found this flash at Newgrounds. Tom Cruise Gets Wet
Knocking someone out would be assault and battery. Assault by itself doesn't require contact. Just shaking your fist threateningly in a certain situation would be enough. HTH --Madis<font="002299">o<font="000099">n 09:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Couldn't get away with calling it assault in England, lol, this should be in the article though. It was a big TC moment Bowen 20:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Church of Scientology Section
This section is a mess. It's just a collection of mostly unrelated sentences. I know this has been a battleground between the pro- and anti-Scientology people, but can't we get a decent section here? Tom Cruise is a member of the Church of Scientology, probably fairly high up. So it's important to him and he talks about it a lot. All the other stuff, which is just thinly veiled promotion or criticism of Scientology should be taken out. I don't think this section is worth more than one paragraph. --Shoaler 14:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I've summarised it into two small paragraphs. Thoughts? Deus Ex 21:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
COULD NOT JOIN THE CHURCH IN 1986 WHILE MARRIED TO MIMI AND MARRY HER IN 1987 AT THE SAME TIME - ONE OR THE OTHER
Tom Cruise Is Nuts
I've noticed that several different people have been reverting edits to add a link to [1], supposedly because it's "inflammatory". I don't see how the website is itself inflammatory. Some may find the URL somewhat questionable, but the website itself is just a list of tabloid occurances, all of them, so far as I can tell, true. If we're going to include "Tom Cruise takes a stand in Europe", "Tom Cruise Overcame Learning Disability", and "TomCruiseFan.com", there's no reason not to include this, if only for another POV. James 22:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The page is only satire anyway, it is not libelous and not hateful of Tom Cruise. I don't think it should be removed just because one user thinks it is ""inflammatory". Deus Ex 22:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have been one of the editors reverting this contribution because I felt it was both superfluous and borderline inflammatory. If the general consensus is to keep this link, I will leave it be. Hall Monitor 23:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think "Tom Cruise is Nuts" is libel and inflammatory, even if the .com material isn't. That's why I reverted it. --Kbdank71 15:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. There isn't anything that contributes to NPOV by inserting libellous ___domain names into an article, but I really don't have the time or energy to enter a revert war over this nonsense. Hall Monitor 16:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it rises to the level of libel, because Tom Cruise is a public figure, the site is taking issue with him on matters of public importance, and the epithet of "nuts" is arguably substantiated by the documented quotes in the site. "Nuts" doesn't necessarily mean mentally ill in a medical sense, but can mean simply holding extremely irrational beliefs not shared by the rest of the populace. The site has well documented that. It also is defensible as parody or humor. The Alexa rating of around 40,000 is pretty high for such a site, so it's obviously getting some traffic. I say the link should go in, provided it is properly identified for what it is. Postdlf 20:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Furthermore, there's nothing to suggest that the operators of the site are in any way able to determine the mental state of Tom Cruise, so there's no reasonable expectation that people would believe their assertion that he is, thus removing any possibility that it would affect his personal reputation, a requirement for libel. James 22:29, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Additionally, the site is clearly satirical, which courts generally have found to be protected nonlibelous speech, particularly when dealing with a public figure who has manifested certain behavior which is the very subject of the satire. 66.81.246.233 05:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Here's another one to argue over: http://www.scienTomogy.info/. The ___domain name isn't necessarily libelous, and it has quite a few video clips. But maybe it's resigned to the same fate. --Interiot 22:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Tom Cruise's past lives
Anyone got a reliable news source on Tom Cruise claiming to have been Shakespeare, Bach, Napoleon and more in various past lives? It sounds a tad dubious(with any other celebrity, it would be obvious satire), but I certainly wouldn't put it past him
Seems to originate from a fake interview: http://www.cinematical.com/2005/08/28/correction-tom-cruise-not-shakespeare/ "Toronto newspaper publishing a fake interview with Tom Cruise that started all the trouble. In the interview, Mr. Totally Sane Guy announced that he was Shakespeare in a previous life. Back in those glorious times when women suffered postpartum depression alone and without treatment, Fake Tom reported that he was much happier than he is today. Not only did he write plays and sonnets and whatnot, but he also did some thing that have so far not been reported as typical Shakespearean activities - you know, things like "conquer[ing] nations, discover[ing] continents, and develop[ing] cures for diseases."
Although a Scottish tabloid, The Daily Record, has a different take on Cruise's past lives:
"I really would have preferred being a brain surgeon or a research scientist in this life." Cruise, 43, told how he has known and loved his latest fiancee, Dawson's Creek star Katie Holmes, "many times in many lives before". He said: "When I was languishing in prison before being sent to exile, she used to send me notes hidden in the collar of her pug dog. She's my eternal soulmate."
Cruise said the "sheer joy" of finding Katie again in his current life was something non-Scientologists could never understand. He added: "I know the history of this woman. Other people don't. "Until you've been with a partner in countless past lives, you'll never know the joy of rediscovering that partner in your present life. It's a joy I wish for all of you."
It's possible that the Daily Record's interview is real, since past lives is definitely something that Scientologists believe in. But the quotes aren't very convincing and some sound like a parody of the Matt Lauer interview.
fiance??
honestly you people are as bad as the folks at TV Guide.
because Katie Holmes is feminine it's fiancee not fiance (male version)....
I suggest that someone changes this.
- I don't see any instance in this article of "fiance". Also, this is a wiki. That means that if you find an error, you can change it just as easily as anyone else. So if you find an error, go ahead and correct it. Dismas|(talk) 09:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one who can speak (or write) French hasn't carpeted all of you guys. The words are actually "fiancé" (male) and "fiancée" (female). Zut alors! -- Jalabi99 09:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Chemical Imbalance
The statement "This runs counter to the what is believed by most of the medical profession" referring to the belief that there's no such thing as a chemical imbalance would appear to require a reference. -Jose
- Yeah, there's no chemical imbalance, and people do not, I repeat, do not get drunk when they drink ten bottles of beer.
- The question is, without ingesting substances that clearly affect brain chemistry, does brain chemistry become 'imbalanced' -- is that the right word for it even? How does your brain get 'balanced' again the next day? Clearly, neurochemical differences have been demonstrated to be associated with certain disorders, but who's to say those differences are pathological in nature. You don't expect everyone's brains and behavior to be identical? Furthermore, many so-called disorders have been shown to originate in generic differences which produce different brain structure, so it's not just about chemicals, and certainly 'imbalanced' seems insufficient and inappropriate to describe such differences. There's a known gene variation that's associated with 50% of ADHD cases, for example, which clearly produces neurological differences. Since as many as 5% of the population might have that gene variation, it must provide some advantages in order to still exist. I think it would be wrong to argue that any gene variation indicates pathology (everyone has gene variations) and the fact that consuming certain drugs appears to help with symptoms doesn't prove an 'imbalance' at all. -Jose
- From the Dopamine Article: "Disruption to the dopamine system has also been strongly linked to psychosis and schizophrenia. Dopamine neurons in the mesolimbic pathway are particularly associated with these conditions. This is partly due to the discovery of a class of drugs called the phenothiazines (which block D2 dopamine receptors) that can reduce psychotic symptoms, and partly due to the finding that drugs such as amphetamine and cocaine (which are known to greatly increase dopamine levels) can cause psychosis. Because of this, most modern antipsychotic medication is designed to block dopamine function to varying degrees. Blocking the D2 dopamine receptor is known to cause relapse in patients that have achieved remission from depression, and such blocking also counteracts the effectiveness of SSRI medication."
- From the Seratonin Article: "Serotonin is believed to play an important part of the biochemistry of depression, migraine, bipolar disorder and anxiety. It is also believed to be influential on sexuality and appetite."
- From the Dopamine receptor article: "In schizophrenics, D2 receptors have been found to exist in higher than normal levels." My issue is with the term 'chemical imbalance', and the fact that it appears to be an ad-hoc and non-scientific. (Which scientific paper introduced the term?) The term implies that mental illness is much like consuming alchohol; some neurotransmitter is a bit out of wack, you just take some drugs to regain 'balance', and everything is fine. It fails to account for the fact that there are many different kinds of brain issues. In some brain diseases there's neuron death and deterioration (e.g. Alzheimer's) and you can try all you want to 'balance' brain chemistry without success. In disorders such as ADHD and autism, it appears that you're basically born with different brain 'wiring' due to genetics, and you just have a different kind of brain all of your life, a difference which does not affect your life expectancy at all. Yet because of all the 'chemical imbalance' hoopla it's considered OK to drug ADHD/HFA kids with Ritalin. Now, in disorders such as anxiety, it's quite possible a neurochemical change is involved (though there's some evidence anxiety is genetic as well) and yet somehow a good cognitivie-behavioral program can be very effective in treating anxiety. So 'chemical imbalance' apparently can be produced by thinking and removed by thinking too, which is not at all the intention of usage of the term, which generally implies that you need to restore 'balance' by consuming drugs. -Jose
- You're absolutely right that "chemical imbalance" is a non-scientific term, and that's why you only hear people like scientologists using it. They use it precisely because it implies that mental illness is caused by "some neurotransmitters out of wack", and makes it seem less plausable to ordinary people. But it's clear what they imply by slamming the term "chemical imbalance": that the idea that levels of certain chemicals in the brain can cause mental disorders and that drugs can be used to fix those levels is untrue. In other words, they hold their view on "chemical imbalance" in support of their view that mental disorders can't be solved with drugs, which is, frankly, demonstably false. Is America overmedicated with these drugs? Quite possibly. But Scientologists argue that they cannot help in any circumstances, which I guess is what you get when you ask a cult for medical advice. TastyCakes 16:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Right, I'm not looking at it from a religious point of view -- I'm completely irreligeous. But by mentioning 'chemical imbalance' Tom Cruise does bring up some questions about something that seems to be taken for granted. (Googling the term brings up even more questions). Obviously drugs can change behavior, but are they really curing an 'imbalance' or simply masking symptoms and perhaps compensating for physiological deficits or unhealthy thinking patterns? And clearly in a way that can only be temporary, not that they aren't at all helpful to anyone. -Jose
- Noone is arguing that chemicals are the only cause of mental disorders. But very few (and even fewer that have any credibility) argue they don't play any role. TastyCakes 20:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if you consider all of the more serious mental issues, neurochemical problems would seem to be really secondary to physiological ones. If there is mental illness that is only caused by neurochemical imbalances (let's say anxiety is one) it would appear that the chemical imbalance is basically a manifestation of a mental state which can be controlled by thinking, based on the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy and programs. It's unclear to me why taking drugs for the rest of your life is considered preferable in such cases. -Jose
- According to who? You or some Scientologist somewhere or who? Doctor's use drugs to deal with mental problems of various levels of severity all the time. That's the fact of the matter and that spells out their views on Scientologists "Chemical Imbalance" talk pretty clearly I think. If you think you can think yourself out of post partum depression or ADHD or autism, or psychosis for that matter, good for you. But I think it's pretty obvious why so many people choose to take drugs "for the rest of their life" rather than make that leap of faith. TastyCakes 17:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- I know first hand that it is possible to rid oneself of problems such as anxiety and panic thru cognitive-behavioral changes alone. I also know first hand that it is not possible (nor desirable) to elminitate other supposed disorders, such as Asperger's syndrome. You misunderstood my argument if you thought I said that you can get rid of autism or psychosis by changing your thinking. There are different kinds of mental conditions. The fact that drugs are able to mask symptoms is not proof that they have restored balance to neurochemicals. -Jose
- For now I've made links to the Dopamine and Seratonin wikipedia pages, which describe mental disorders associated with them. TastyCakes 23:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Serious problem with objectivity, facts in Scientology section
"A person would wonder how the Church of Scientology feels about Tom Cruise commiting adultery and producing a bastard son. I guess Scientology is not Christian based."
I think this sentence should be deleted in full -- "committing adultery" is highly arguable, "bastard son" is untrue (I don't think Tom Cruise produced a child out of wedlock), and "I guess Scientology is not Christian based" is an assertion that has no place in a wikipedia.
- In some parts of Christianity anything outside of marriage is adultery. "Bastard son" would refer to the conception of his biological child outside of wedlock. Tom was raised Catholic and apparently is still alowed to practice it along with scientology.
- "Allowed" to practice both Scientology and Catholicism? Allowed by whom? Something tells me that the Catholic Church would not take to kindly to an adherent of the Catholic faith practicing something that they would consider to be at best non-Christian and at worst idolatrous. You know, the whole "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me" routine. -- Jalabi99 09:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
chemical imbalances and objectivity--
RE: Objectivity. I think science and it's subspecialties such as medicine, math, and technology are far more "objective" than Tom's zealous rants against neurology. Moreover, I think humankind does better with information based on evidence as opposed to information spouted from an uneducated "true believer" of any faith or anyone who claims that the answers to their problems lie in the supernatural realm.
Science and technology have built civilization--humans triumph because we change the environment to fit us instead of merely adapting through the slow evolutionary process. For example, other animals seek shelter from the heat. Humans invented air conditioners. Although the term "chemical imbalance" is a layman's way of saying that "what's going on in your brain determines how well you function and what sort of feelings you have." By the way, someone wrote of "generic" differences, when they meant genetic differences. But genes code for proteins--which are chemicalsThese chemical reactions might have helped our ancestors survive and reproduce, but they can be debilitating in today's world. The super obese are an example. One might have inherited a gene which causes a "chemical imbalance" that results in an insatiable hunger (not unlike my dog mind you), but in a world with plenty of food, that might not bode well (and I suspect my dog might eat himself to death too if I left the fridge door open.) Our ancestors got their vitamin D from the sun--but we invented lights, and often spend many days without sun--so we supplement with the "chemical" vitamin D.
Tom cruise errs in making an assumption that "natural methods" like the scientology practice of "clearing" (using a lie detector type device)is superior to chemicals--and that all "drugs" are bad. But drugs are just chemicals--and chemical reactions are responsible for all life. I don't think clearing will do much for exhaustion caused by insulin dependent diabetes--nor a woman who can't conceive because her body doesn't make enough progesterone to sustain a pregnancy. Sufferers who inject themselves with synthetic chemicals fair much better than those who might attempt more natural methods. My husband was into healthy eating, didn't smoke...wouldn't even take an aspirin. He died at age 28 from colon cancer. Aspirin turnes out to signigicantly decrease ones risk of getting colon cancer. Go figure.
Tom cruise needs to learn about something called a "double blind study" to understand how we know what works in medicine and that which is a placebo. Tom cruise doesn't believe in chemical imbalances, but he does believe that that people need to be cleared of the invisible energy demons in their body by chemical clearing and scientology (more like sci-fi-entology.) Believing something doesn't make it true. That's why science demands data and testing and replication of results. In fact anyone can look up James Randi on the web and recieve a million dollars if they can do whatever supernatural claim they say they can do--and prove it with a jointly agreed upon scientific test.
Those who have a good life naturally attribute it to their religion, God, lucky socks, etc. (How many winning football players thank Jesus afterwards? Would a Supreme Being care who won the Superbowl?) But correlation is not causation--which Mr. Cruise would understand if he was studying science as opposed to "scientology".--Is it any wonder that Americans continue to perform so poorly (ranking 22 and 23) in both science and math among developed nations. We once were number one on the scientific front.
Citations requested
I've been asked to go through this article and verify its contents. I've added hidden comments (viewable in the Edit box), where citations should be included. Overall, the article looks good, with no glaringly obvious problems. We just need to verify the facts. The best way to do this is to first pick a few thorough references on Cruise, cite those whenever possible, directly in the article, and list them under the References section. Once that is done, then the citations can be all fancied up with {{ref label}} and {{note label}}. I and others would really appreciate anybody willing to help out on this. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 21:03
Gay accusations
article was unthinkingly in the "not gay" camp, not even addressing the rumours and accusations etc. the section is about *rumours* hence source by defn are non-verifiable. and are you claiming south park did *not* make an episode about tc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
- The South Park episode is already addressed in the "Church of Scientology" section. And unfounded rumors with no reliable sources behind them have no place in a Wikipedia article. And no, a link to some blog is not a "reliable source." --MisterHand 13:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
New to wikipedia
I'm new to Wikipedia and have not been brave enough to edit any articles but this one sure is bad. It reads like a two week old Enquirer magazine with all the rumors and allegations.JohnM4402 17:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- See any that are unsourced? Discuss them here. wikipediatrix 01:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
actor, producer, and scientologist?
I think the inclusion of "scientologist" is inappropriate in the lede for cruise. Are other personalities notable for their professions typically given their religions in the opening sentence, even if it is a significant part of them? Are other hollywood personalities connected with CoS labeled as such in the opening sentence of their pages? I am no fan of the CoS, but this definitely has POV connotations, in that it implies scientology is as much a part of what makes tom cruise worth mentioning as the other two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.197.252 (talk)
- See Jumping the couch. I think Scientology is a very notable aspect of Tom Cruise and should be in the lead sentence. --Cyde Weys votetalk 07:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
"See Jumping the couch." Why?
The Cliff Richard article doesn't say "popular singer and Christian", and the Madonna article doesn't say "famous singer and Kabbalist", though, of course, the religious beliefs of both are subsequently discussed in detail. A space can be found for these beliefs in some introductory paragraphs (Cliff Richard, Richard Dawkins, Graham Greene), but squeezing Scientology into the opening sentence is at best misleading and at worst POV given that this isn't done for other prominent Scientologists (Kelly Preston, John Travolta, Mimi Rogers, Jerry Seinfeld &c.).
Rumours and Gossip
Is it possible to move all the rumours into their own category? The article reads like a pastiche of an encyclopedia and a supermarket tabloid. I came to the article looking for biographical information. I enjoy reading the rumours, but not in every paragraph. In Rudolph Valentino all the and rumours and gossip were moved into a single category at the end of the main article. Previously it was interspersed throughout, and made it difficult to read. The paragraph about Cruise being brainwashed by scientology may be referenced properly but it isn't encylopedic, and should be put in a category of: Rumour or Gossip. The information provided by FACTnet is from secondary and tertiary sources and is gossipy and conspiracy theory and is not sourced at their website. Most references are to "files" and "reports" without links to actual documents. What do you think? I am going to make the move if I dont hear any dissent. I made the move, now does anyone think it should be deleted?
- the move you made seems appropriate.--Alhutch 23:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
High School
A woman wrote to the help desk saying that Cruise went to Trinity High School. The NNDB states he attended 8 elementary schools and 3 high schools. [2]. His Who's Who entry for 2006 states he graduated from Glen Ridge High School. Capitalistroadster 05:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've completely reworked the article on Katie Holmes and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes. PedanticallySpeaking 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
especially litigious when it comes to allegations or inferences of homosexuality
Just tidied the previous edit which added Cruise being especially litigious when it comes to allegations or inferences of homosexuality. Thoughts? Glen Stollery (My contributions) 20:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Popularity drop, temporary???
There is little doubt his popularity is still significantly below previous levels - he is the top contender for the Razzies (worst acting awards) next month! Why does this say "at least temporarily" as following that logic couldn't anything be 'temporary'? (eg; Michael Jackson's popularity drop - just temporary also?) Surely we can't comment on what may happen in the future. Why not just leave at his popularity as a result has dropped (numerous surveys confirm this also). Glen Stollery (My contributions) 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Rob thomas?
Can someone explain to me what is the relation of Rob Thomas with Tom Cruise?
- Sure. They are both male, entertainers, married, and Americans. Plus, "Tom" is short for "Thomas". That's it, I think. -- Jalabi99 09:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Blackmail
Check this out. It's a recent bit that explains Cruise is threatening to refuse publicity for the third installment of Mission Impossible unless executives permanently remove "Trapped in the Closet" from their lineup. This certainly seems to warrant an update, but I may leave it for those with better skill. --AWF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.97.151 (talk)
Clean-up
This article needs some clean-up. Almost every single sentence in the article is ended with an outside-link. I dont think this proper MoS. What do you guys think? Tutmosis 00:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Considering Cruise is notoriously litigious, and that Scientology invites controversy and is itself notoriously litigious, too much documentation is not a bad thing for this topic. JuanOso 01:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that, but im talking about the large amount of external links integrated into the article. They should either be in External Links section or References. Tutmosis 01:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with sourcing in the article itself. That's done in many of the longer articles here at Wiki. I think that's better than a list of 50 references at the end of the piece. That's often less accurate, as one cannot tell which statement in the article is linked to which reference. It's easier for vandals and pranksters to slip in unsubstantiated material that way. JuanOso 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Can you provide an example of another article which does this? Tutmosis 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Look at Tom DeLay for a good example. JuanOso 02:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. Ill drop this now although still it doesnt look right to me. Tutmosis 03:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Look at Tom DeLay for a good example. JuanOso 02:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Can you provide an example of another article which does this? Tutmosis 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with sourcing in the article itself. That's done in many of the longer articles here at Wiki. I think that's better than a list of 50 references at the end of the piece. That's often less accurate, as one cannot tell which statement in the article is linked to which reference. It's easier for vandals and pranksters to slip in unsubstantiated material that way. JuanOso 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that, but im talking about the large amount of external links integrated into the article. They should either be in External Links section or References. Tutmosis 01:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I downloaded the South Park episode from XENU.NET
And I feel naughty. I don't see nothing offensive though. Just the regular South Park stuff. I guess Cruise wants his fellow scientologists to stop thinking he is an asshole after the "couch" incident by pretending to be all bad and tough. So far Jenna Elfman and Beck are still good people in my book.
- No need to feel naughty at southparkstudios.com Matt and Trey state: ""Matt and Trey [creators] do not mind when fans download their episodes off the Internet; they feel that it’s good when people watch the show no matter how they do it." So enjoy! File:Glenstollery.gifPOW! 10:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I did enjoy it. I wasn't denouncing or trying to get xenu.net sued. I was sharing the joy! So, EVERYONE GO TO XENU.NET AND DOWNLOAD AND DISTRIBUTE THE TORRENT! And, Tom, when Scientology starts to do advertizing with Beck's music instead than with your sorry ass face then maybe I'll consider to go and fight the aliens for everlasting peace! LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!
- I think Matt & Trey have a healthy appreciation for the benefits of the digital re-distribution of their work, believing that "no publicity is bad publicity". Besides, they realize that they have made so much money from the show that a couple of million people downloading and sharing one measly episode of it won't bankrupt them. Plus, the more people that see the episode, the better they will understand the rather strange foundations of the beliefs of Scientology. "And then I pulled out my GUN!..." :) -- Jalabi99 09:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
"Cult" of Scientology
I think Tom Cruise's outspoken belief in Scientology warrants inclusion in the opening paragraph, but why is described as a "cult?" Seems needlessly POV to me. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, there are LOTS of references on the internet and elsewhere that describe Scientology as a "cult." This is nothing new and really not POV. Dr. Cash 04:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Wives
Is it worth mentioning that each wife is 11 years younger than the previous? It's not particularly relevant but it is a fun trivia fact. --Peter Robinett 01:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely. Ace Class Shadow 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Biography
Does anyone but me agree that his biography needs to be revamped and have more flow and be more descriptive? I'm about to rewrite it all. McDonaldsGuy 05:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)