Talk:Tom Cruise/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Child Born? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Done. Sandover 18:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  scientology 

message: "Cruise also said in an Entertainment Weekly interview that psychiatry "is a Nazi science" and that methadone was actually originally called Adolophine after Adolf Hitler, a myth well-known as an urban legend.[39] " I am a chemistry student at university. In "Organic Chemistry" by P. Yurkanis Bruice the story about adolphine is reported to be true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.104.58.156 (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  adolphine 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Law suit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.
Mentioning his outburst on the Oprah show is fine. But.....going into thick detail about every little thing? 74.12.5.207 21:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oprah section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  pov moved from article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Assault 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Church of Scientology Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  fiance?? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Serious problem with objectivity, facts in Scientology section 

message: 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.
* "Neurology" is not the same as psychiatry, postnatal depression is not known to have any chemical causes, and a famous person talking about their beliefs is not a 'bad' thing.  And neither, for that matter, is expressing emotions like, say, joy?  I think that there's a definite anti-Cruise bandwaggon that's just getting a little old now.  The man's a damn fine actor, an accute businessman, and a fantastically savvy producer.  To top it off, in spite of his incredible stardom, he's also one of the nicest and most humble people one could ever hope to meet.  Lay off him, man, it's just not fair.--86.21.241.2 02:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  chemical imbalances and objectivity-- 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gay accusations 

message: 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)
replies: text:  See any that are unsourced? Discuss them here. wikipediatrix 01:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should go find a less fiercley debated article, do some actual contributions, then complain...--Kbbbb 13:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New to wikipedia 

message: 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 • contribs) 
: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)
thread_title:  actor, producer, and scientologist? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rumours and Gossip 

message: 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. . His Who's Who entry for 2006 states he graduated from Glen Ridge High School. Capitalistroadster 05:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  High School 

message: 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/archive1.  PedanticallySpeaking 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Katie Holmes]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  especially litigious when it comes to allegations or inferences of homosexuality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popularity drop, temporary??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rob thomas? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Can you provide an example of another article which does this? Tutmosis 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at Tom DeLay for a good example. JuanOso 02:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, thank you. Ill drop this now although still it doesnt look right to me. Tutmosis 03:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: 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)
replies: text: Definitely. Ace Class Shadow 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wives 

message: Why is he in the High School Dropouts category?  It says he graduated from some high school in Jersey.  There's no mention of him being a dropout anywhere else in the article.  I say we remove him from that category. ColinKennedy 15:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that too. Anyone know why that category is there? Cine 10:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  High School Dropout? 

message: I've just added a POV dispute tag to the top of the article.  For the record, I don't consider myself a Tom Cruise fan (I can name maybe four of his movies?), but this article is blatantly not NPOV.  I'll start adding specific blurbs to this subsection shortly...  Justen Deal 23:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are specific words and phrases that are biased, then you are free to be bold and correct them so that they express the points in a more neutral tone.  The NPOV is more appropriate in cases where there aren't many willing people ready to edit the article and make it better.  I think this article has a number of watchers and editors that are willing to improve it.  If you have a problem with the article, then FIX IT and explain your edits. Vivaldi (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not a Tom Cruise fan either, but I very much agree with Justen that this article has serious NPOV problems. Wikipedia shouldnt be a dumping ground for tabloid gossip. How about more serious treatment of his career for instance? At the moment discussion of his career takes up about 15% of the article. He is primarily known as a movie star, you know, Bwithh 00:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bwithh-- Tom Cruise is now most notable in the press as an oddball and eccentric that happens to be a movie star.  Have you missed the literally thousands of articles about him that were published by nearly every media source around?  Mr. Cruise has devoted a lot of his recent interviewing time to promoting the dangerous religion of Scientology and promoting its pseudo-scientific nonsense -- such as his attack on Brooke Shields.  Mr. Cruise has also spent a lot of time in the press discussing his engagement, Katie Holmes, his sex with Katie Holmes (which he points out was accomplished through the act of heterosexual lovemaking and was not just a conception with a turkey baster).  Now when a guy goes on TV and in interviews and discusses his sexual prowess -- then he becomes known for those statements.  And right now, TC is most notable for being an eccentric movie star.  Vivaldi (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: SO FIX IT! Thank you for your suggestion!  When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in!  (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold.  Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly.  If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.-- Vivaldi (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)There's no need to shout at us. 2)None of us above in this comments section are actually Wikipedia beginners. we all already know what a wiki is and how to edit, thank you very much. 3)I already made edits in the article (over the placenta excitment) but not that interested this subject enough in editing more 4) I already mentioned my main POV objection - 15% of the article prose deals with Tom Cruise's career. The rest is largely tabloid gossip. Is Tom Cruise mainly a movie star or tabloid freak? Bwithh 00:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These days? A well paid tabloid freak. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Placenta eating is not unheard of and not beyond the pale strange. Mother cats and dogs eat their own placentas. For humans, it was something of  New Age fashion in the US at some point (1970s?). see Placentophagy/ Bwithh 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placenta 

message: I removed this tag which is not appropriate without better explanations provided on the talk page.  I'm willing to write this article in a more neutral point of view if you can provide me with specific examples of what kinds of changes you think are necessary.  Which sentences or paragraphs do you assert are biased and how are they biased?  Wikipedia offers a means to fix things that are written in a biased tone.  It is called editing, and you are encouraged to do it.  Vivaldi (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of NPOV tag 

message: I just corrected a vandalization of this page. Someone had changed the opening line "Tom Cruise (born etc....) to "Tom Cruise is gay (born etc.....). Since I am new here, I am not sure if I have to report this, or what. rhmoore 10:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, you don't have to.  A summary such as "rvv" or "reverted vandalism" is helpful in the edit summary box though.  Dismas|(talk) 10:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is quite a favourite target for vandalism, so apart from using the edit summary, you could also leave a warning message on the talk page of the user. gunslotsofguns 04:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal 

message: In the section discussing the birth of Cruise's and Holmes' child, Suri, I found the following:
On April 18, 2006 Holmes gave birth to a baby girl named Suri, the first child for both Holmes and Cruise although the latter has two adopted children: Connor Antony (born January 17, 1995) and Isabella Jane (born December 22, 1992) from his marriage to Nicole Kidman.[1]
As an adopted child (now an adult) and an adoptive mother I really have to object to this language. Suri is most emphatically NOT Cruise's first child. The two children he adopted with Kidman as are much "his" children as this child. Suri should properly be referred to as his third child, but his first "biological" child. I am making the appropriate change to the text. If you need references to appropriate adoption language, leave a message here and I wll get it for you. 
espanglish 
:How is "It's" appropriate language when referring to a child? I've fixed "it". - Nunh-huh 07:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may not have, but someone did: the sentence I fixed was "It's the first child for Holmes and third for Cruise, who (as previously mentioned) has two adopted children with Nicole Kidman. " - Nunh-huh 07:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate adoption langauge 

message: I have removed the following;
with the help of African Monkeys,the film sold over a lot of tickets.  In an ironic twist of events,
and 
or 7,654,465 Pesos at the Mecksekon package station,
I'm guessing their were no monkeys... but if their were I bet they were paid pesos...
Morgan Leigh 10:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: I know this is an extremely subjective lable, but at this point, should this article still be referring to Cruise as "A List?"
:No
Before he lost his mind? Ya, prolly. Now? No. The guy's a nut.Casual Karma 07:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was never A list. He's alsways been a second rate actor, since he's become nuts he has got even worse. 205.188.116.133 11:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A List? 

message: We really could use a list of the films Tom Cruise has been in. 76.27.163.200 19:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Films 

message: It's twice lsited about his split with Paramount he split with his 5 year old grl friend hamanuchi allison kfjdkgd- once under the Split Heading (current events) and once under miscellaneous. Perhaps remove from the misc. section?
knightrojen 04:33, 06 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of double statement 

message: But wait, what about the Nintendo 64 Mission Impossible game?
The image used in Mission Impossible on the N64 was based upon a Tom Cruise lookalike and then tweaked to improve the likeness.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.11.139 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  His images not to be used in games/etc 

message: Can someone add a quote somewhere in that article that Steven Colbert from the Colbert Report supposes that this couple is over rated.Newrebirth 01:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Cruise Katie Holmes 

message: Just a query, the article states "Cruise was born to Thomas Mapother III and Mary Lee Pfeiffer" and later says "Cruise, who dropped his father's name at age twelve" but there's no origin given for the name Cruise. I'm guessing, if it is a name he's related to, and not a randomly chosen one (which seems unlikely for a 12 year old), it's from the maternal Irish ancestors as Cruise is a Dublin area surname. Is there any clarification of this? It seems confusing that there's no apparent origin for the name given in the article, and I'm guessing most people don't realise Cruise is an Irish name. Lone Architect 16th October 2006
I just assumed from the heading that "Cruise" is his middle name. Topher0128 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname 

message: In an HBO interview of Tom Cruise in 1992, Tom stated that he was Croatian (Possibly born in Croatia, I don't remember) and his name was Tomislav Kruzić He had later changed his name to Tom Cruise (Tomislav Kruzić (Kruz sounds exactly like Cruise)) 
So what is the story?
Emperor of Europe 20:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the citation provided for Cruise's parents which goes in to some detail.  --Yamla 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Born in Croatia!!! LOL! Not exactly.... Mad Jack 05:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about his surname 

message: I re-introduced the text in the INTRO that that been reverted on this actor. The reason why I re-wrote the intro initially is because the language was abusive. Intros of encyclopedial articles should summarize a person's life and/or achievement, and not necessarily highlight the negative instances of the personality's life which are temporary anyway. Actually there is quite a bit of coverage on this later in the article.  I hope this clarifies things for writers here and help them contribute to articles for which they will be commended....NeutralWriter
What fun is an article about Tom Cruise if we can't use abusive language?  I mean, the first word that comes to mind when you even think of Tom Cruise is ASSHOLE!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.25.60 (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of both the purpose of Wikipedia and the responsibilities of those who contribute to it. Ghostwords (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abusive Language 

message: * The lead section is not up to standards of WP:LEAD; ie lead section should summarize the article and in this case should be some two paragraphs longer
* The section "Acting career" is very dense and reads as a list at time. If you were trying to shorten it to get the article shorter, it is superior to split off that section into an article of its own. But it would be better to have this section long, on the expense of other section.
* Several statements needs referencing. This includes the statement that he is equally popular among both women and men and all figures of movie grossing.
* Major restructure needed. Some examples:
** Half of the article is "controversy" which is inappropriate for any biography. 
** The relationship section has too many headers
** Is a section on gay rumors crucial for the article?
** The Controversy#Miscellaneous section is like a trivia section. I think that it would be better for the article to remove it in whole. Fred-Chess 16:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA failing 

message: In the opening paragraph there is a statement that says that Tom Cruise is the only actor to have starred in 6 consecutive $100 Million movies (domestic gross).  He has actually starred in 7 and he's not the only one. Tom Hanks also has 7 consecutive $100 million movies.  However, if Tom Cruise's next movie also grosses over $100 million then he'll be the only person to have reached that milestone as Tom Hanks' streak has already ended.
Tom Cruise
5/5/06 Mission: Impossible III  $133,501,348 
6/29/05 War of the Worlds $234,280,354 
8/6/04 Collateral $101,005,703 
12/5/03 The Last Samurai $111,127,263 
6/21/02 Minority Report $132,072,926 
12/14/01 Vanilla Sky $100,618,344 
5/24/00 Mission: Impossible II $215,409,889 
Tom Hanks
12/25/02 Catch Me If You Can $164,615,351 
7/12/02 Road to Perdition $104,454,762 
12/22/00 Cast Away $233,632,142 
12/10/99 The Green Mile $136,801,374 
11/19/99 Toy Story 2 $245,852,179
12/18/98 You've Got Mail $115,821,495 
7/24/98 Saving Private Ryan $216,540,909 
*According to BoxOfficeMojo.com
"One of them included a movie where he actually had sex with a turtle." Was this just random vandalism? It was inserted into the write up above
--Kwake20 (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of consecutive $100 Million movies 

message: Shouldn't his role in that movie be mentioned in the box?  He was nominated for an Oscar for it. Redddogg 03:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born on the Fourth of July 

message: *Interesting source:
Tom Cruise, according to a high-ranking Scientologist, will one day be "worshiped like Jesus all over the world, becoming a prophet for the movement." Cruise is the "chosen one" who will spread the word.
*And here is the appropriate citation:
"Gauthier: Beware false prophet", Deborah E. Gauthier/Daily News Columnist, Sunday, January 28, 2007, The Daily News Tribune.  Yours, Smee 19:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff Quiros isn't the president of the Church of Scientology. (That would be Heber Jentzsch, unless there's been a recent coup.) I don't doubt that Greg Churilov is a member of the SPL, but if you could supply a reference that the SPL is any kind of official Church of Scientology organization, a number of people would be very grateful. (Personally I think the whole story is a bunch of codswallop started by one tabloid and spread to others like "Bigfoot's baby" stories.) AndroidCat 05:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the relevent policy/guidelines are WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP, especially WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material. This has six sentences in a tabloid from "a source close to the actor". AndroidCat 14:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beware false prophet 

message: *It looks like there are now lots and lots and lots of secondary sources reporting on this incident:
#'Make-believers' find a new 'Christ' in Cruise, Florida Baptist Witness, FL - Feb 7, 2007
#Cruise v. Christ, LAist, CA - Jan 28, 2007
#It's official - Tom Cruise is divine, January 26, 2007, The Guardian
#Tom Cruise a False Christ?, The Conservative Voice, NC - Jan 29, 2007
#Tom Cruise hailed as 'Christ' of Scientology, New Zealand Herald (Subscription), New Zealand - Jan 24, 2007
#Tom Cruise is 'a Christ', Melbourne Herald Sun, Australia - Jan 24, 2007
#Tom Cruise compared to Christ, China Daily, China - Jan 23, 2007
#Tom Cruise compared to Christ, Hollywood News, UK - Jan 24, 2007
#Tom Cruise is Scientology 'Christ', Now Magazine Online, UK - Jan 23, 2007
#Tom Cruise is the 'Christ' of Scientology., PR-Inside.com (Pressemitteilung), Austria - Jan 23, 2007
#Tom Cruise, Scientology’s New Messiah, Bodog Beat, Costa Rica - Jan 23, 2007
#Tom Cruise dubbed Scientology's Jesus, LondonNet, 23/01/07
*At the very least, worth mentioning in the mainspace of the article...  Smee 08:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientologists equate Cruise w/ Christ? 

message: This rumor is flying around the IMDB boards from a source and could possibly be true it seems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.98.27 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Cruise and UA to produce Mortal Kombat sequel? 

message: On the 53rd episode of the anime "Yakitate!! Japan" they have a parody of the first episode of their own show starring a guy named Tom Crusoe who's trying to convince his father to try eating rice. In the first episode of Yakitate!! Japan, Azuma Kazuma was trying to get his grandfather to try eating bread instead of rice. Besides the name reference the character isn't like Cruise at all. ArtimusClydeFrog 02:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to maybe add 

message: These should be incorporated into the article.  Smee 08:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be the point? Is this information that an encyclopedia should contain? Of course it isn't.90.134.56.2 (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations to add to the article... 

message: * Has never allowed his image to be used in video games.
* Despite famously wearing braces to correct the alignment of his teeth in the early 2000s, Tom Cruise's upper teeth are not centered; one of his two front teeth is positioned right in the middle of his face, a fact verifiable from many photographs.
* Bury Your Dead made an album with every song title from the movies he has been in.
* Owns a Bugatti Veyron 16.4.
 Here is what I couldn't fit into the article because; 1) Not sure 1st point is true, 2)How his face and teeth line up is irrelevant, 3) Bury Your Dead isn't is famous as Cruise, people might wonder who they are, 4) Either we list all his vehicles or none AND is this really notable? The rest seemed to fit in easily. Anynobody 11:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section leftovers 

message: If he married Nicole Kidman in 1990 and they divorced in 2001, they were married 11 years, not ten as stated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.17.42.72 (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage to Kidman 

message: How come there's not Trivia section or an awards section? There is an awards section for Nicole Kidman and so many other people on Wikipedia. Tri400 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section? Awards section? 

message: I took out the part about Tom saying he was going to eat Katie's placenta.  Nothing more came of it and I don't think the article can have a paragraph about everything that he says.  If it comes out that he really did eat it, then the information should be included. Steve Dufour 00:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confessions of a Placenta Eater 

message: The filmography for Tom Cruise should be made more visible by adding a link in the contents. I believe the vast majority of actors has one.
ICE77 -- 81.104.129.226 00:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The filmography is not visible 

message: I was directed to link 24 on this page and noticed that it doesn't go where it should.  Rather than being about Cruise, it links to a National Enq. story about Whitney Houston.  Maybe someone changed it because they didn't like where it went??? Sorry, I don't know why it's putting this box around my message24.21.209.135 01:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Sabotage? 

message: Brat Pack should link to Brat Pack (movies) 24.86.185.56 15:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting Career 

message: "Cruise has German and Colonial English ancestry from his paternal great-grandparents, William Reibert and Charlotte Louise Voelker; and purportedly Welsh ancestry from his paternal great-great-grandfather, Dylan Henry Mapother, who emigrated from Flint, Wales to Louisville, Kentucky in 1850"
The fact that he has "purportedly Welsh ancestry" from a great, great grandfather isn't a very good reason to include him a category called "Welsh-Americans". I think he should be removed, his link to Wales is too vague and very distant. Deus Ex 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'd be bold and remove it but I can't work out this mess of a section at all. How can he be descended three times from one man, twice from that man's grandfather, and once from that man's great-grandfather? It's like a bad riddle. (The surgeon is female!) -- Dandelions 23:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsh American? 

message: Can someone please add Tom Cruise's contribution to charity?
Tom Cruise has donated to charities such as, the Ashley Flint Fund, Tsunami Relief Fund, Themoms.biz Diabetes Fund, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s, Jackie Chan’s Foundation, in 2001 he participated at “Time For Heroes” fundrising to raise money for research for children with AIDS, Cruise is active in the Hollywood Education and Literacy Project (H.E.L.P., he co-founded an organization to expand a treatment program for rescue workers after the collapse of the World Trade centre in 2002, he was honored in 2003 by MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership with their Excellence in Mentoring Award for his lifelong campaign against illiteracy and he was honored by Mentor LA in 2007 for his support with schools and neighborhoods of some of the most disenfranchised communities in Los Angeles.
10:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  However the source you provided does not really seem to be a reliable source by WP's standards. Steve Dufour 03:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thing is... without verifiable sources, this all should not be part of Wikipedia IMHO  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Tom Cruise Charities''' 

message: Tom's middle name is not jeremiah. His middle name is originally Cruise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.246.93 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cruise is his last name!!! --Krawunsel (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, have you actually read the article? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle Name 

message: *Template:Tom Cruise has been nominated for deletion.  To participate in the deletion discussion, please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 5.  Thanks.  Cirt (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Tom Cruise]] 

message: While I wouldn't normally consider rumours article material, the fact that wiki authors have seen fit to print the gay rumours, and that holoprosencephaly represents another explanation for some of Cruise's (and his counsels') behaviour, I think it also deserves a bit of space. There have been reported instances of counsel action against web communities discussing this possibility, an unusual step were the rumour to be far off the mark.65.93.162.196 (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its quite a fact, actually. He has only 3 incisors, which is highly indicative of holoprosencephaly. The rest developed quite normally, yet he still had some dyslexia and learning disability. As we all know, dyslexia may predispose you to other great talents. I would be concerned for his children though. (69.211.27.137 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holoprosencephaly speculation 

message: I added the bit about the Daily Mail's report that TC was #2 in Scientology, per Andrew Morton.  Somehow my edit, which looks fine on the preview age, has damaged the 'couch incident' paragraph below mine.  Can someone tidy it up for me please and tell me where I went wrong?  ThanksCross Reference (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: References need to be surrounded with . You missed out the "/" in the second <ref>. That's not to say that I accept the reference, only corrected its form. You also need to post new items at the bottom of this page, where I have now moved it.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone help with my edit? 

message: Can we add a paragraph that describes the video where he laughs maniacally at the end? It's crazier than the Oprah Incident.
http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress
--Sonjaaa (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that at least a description of the video and the controversy surrounding its release and subsequent quashing by the CoS would be relevant.Theideaofprogress (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be best if the description could be sourced from elsewhere, to avoid original research. Likewise the quashing. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That misses the point, with respect. I've seen the video too. But to put it, or any reference to it, into the article requires a verifiable source, and given the enthusiasm of the CoS to protect itself, we ought to tread carefully here. I accept the New York Post as a reliable source; what is more important is the wording with which this event is treated in this article. Whatever you may think of Tom Cruise, policy still applies. This is an encyclopedia, not a hatchet-job. So, please, some restraint here. I propose we decide here what is the proper way to deal with this incident rather than engaging in POV edit wars and endless and unproductive reversions, let alone the risk of litigation from the CoS. Speak softly, but carry a big stick, as they say. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In my experience, very well indeed. They filmed it, or commissioned it, therefore they own the copyright. I doubt the Wikipedia Foundation can afford to spend millions of $ defending an action, and we would breach copyright even by linking to the video. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It is not fine; this guideline makes that crystal clear. I did not say the "we should give Scientology a free pass". What I said was that we should not foolishly infringe their copyright, and I would say that about any copyvio. As to self-censorship, one of our major policies is to have a neutral point of view and we should remove (not censor) any violation of that policy. I stand by my opinion. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It is not. It is claimed to be fair use in one case, and the Wikipedia Foundation's fair-use requirements are stricter than the general law. If in doubt, email User:Mike Godwin, but I know exactly what he'll say. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. It's an opinion 2. By a British lawyer 3. About news reporting  4. In the United Kingdom. 5. Which is subject to Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. In what way would this protect from liability an encyclopedia whose servers are based in Florida? Discuss with particular reference to Section 32(2) of the CDPA 1988. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 08:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  indoctrination video 

message: ;Source
*
**Discuss.  :)  Cirt (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. It's an opinion 2. By a British lawyer 3. About news reporting  4. In the United Kingdom. 5. Which is subject to Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. In what way would this protect from liability an encyclopedia whose servers are based in Florida? Discuss with particular reference to Section 32(2) of the CDPA 1988. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 08:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal opinion from a media lawyer in Britain 

message: Sample edits. I haven't looked at the sourcing for this, yet, but neither user involved seems to be disputing the accuracy of said source. I can only assume, then, that the dispute concerns whether the line(s) in question are relevant. Are they? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't even been discussed, as far as I can see: This is the edit summary from User:BillyMurray's first deletion: Yeah, lots of people have had their say about the video, doesn't mean they need to be mentioned here. which makes me think that sourced content should not be deleted without achieving consensus, otherwise anyone could go round the encyclopedia unilaterally deleting things they didn't like. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 07:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I assume this is a deletion discussion; not that it's binding here, but could you keep us in touch with the outcome, since it may help to persuade and I don't think there are any German-speakers here. Meanwhile, it's back in; I just object to people coming along and deleting sourced material without discussion. That's a route to anarchy. Thanks --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "This is rubbish. Goebbels was the representative of a state, who could use a huge propaganda machine, while Cruise stands for a religious group, although he has the rhetorical abilities of Goebbels. Concerning the video: The sentence "Should we clean this place up?" is just the fervent ending of a convention - a demand to improve the world. Any other interpretation would probably be too daring - and would give to much honor to the scientologists,  because after the Nazi-comparison they can put themselves into the pose of moral supremacy".
Maybe this should be added (even if not verbatim). Or Knopp's statement should be removed. Dunno... --Abe Lincoln (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You don't really care about discussion pages here in the en.wikipedia, do you? --Abe Lincoln (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: People come & go; obviously this issue is either not important enough, or people will deal with it over the weekend. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goebbels 

message: Um, I'm having difficulty locating the "Japan Memorial Day Association" on the web. Who exactly are this prestigious organisation anyway. The only google hits I can find are of them giving an award to Tom Cruise, but it's in the lead as important, so if they're an important organisation they ought to have a webpage somewhere?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan Memorial Day Association 

message: Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers]] priority assessment 

message: Anyone know his politics?  I have heard it said that he is very liberal, but don't jhave good sourcing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal democrat? 

message: :This info should be added into the article at some point, will most likely get lots more coverage in additional WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources.  Cirt (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Cruise spoofed in [[Superhero Movie]] 

message: :Source to use in this article.  Cirt (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Tom Cruise gets horrible press in Australia. Anybody know why that is? Maybe it should be in the article.90.135.61.218 (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TomKat's marriage impossible 

message: I was going to edit the line about Ron Kovic.  It should read something like "parapalegic veteran and anti-war activist Ron Kovic."  Not "Anti-Vietnam War hero Ron Kovic;"  Even if you agree with his stance this is far from NPOV, he didn't pull a baby out of a burning building or something.  Of course I couldn't because there is no way to edit the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.86.153 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article locked? 

message: This article reads like a 9th grade book report.
Examples:
First paragraph:  This is supposed to be the most important thing about the person.  If you only know one thing about someone, it should be here.  What does this article say?  Some fan club in Japan voted to have a "Tom Cruise" Day.!
What's with the crazy name.  Are we supposed to say "oh, that lying cheat, I thought his name was "Tom Cruise?"  What's his legal name now?  That should be the lead.  If he was born with some other name/names, etc... put that somewhere else.
- first leading role was in Risky business?  Are you a film critic?  When is a role "leading" in your opinion?  Why do we care?
"After that, he starred in many top films and became a Hollywood celebrity, ..."  Save that for your book report
"perhaps the most notable of these being the hugely successful 1986 film Top Gun."  If you're going to say something, say it... "perhaps?" - you're not sure?  "most notable?"  To who?  Hugely successful?  Not just successful but hugely?
- Cruise is also known for his support of Scientology,[4] and his criticism of psychiatry and anti-depressive drugs, which have attracted controversy and media interest.
--"known" by who?
--What is "support for" scientology?  I thought he was a scientologist
--not "his criticism has attracted controversy" ... that makes it sound like "he has made statements that all of us right thinking people know are wrong."   
--I didn't know "the media" were experts on what can be criticized.
--It should say Cruise "has publically criticized psychiatry and the use of psychiatric drugs."  Why can't wiki writers resist the urge to add things like "but I think this all wrong, he's wrong, everyone on the TV news knows he's wrong, they say so... etc."  Just stick to the facts.
-What's "purportedly" Welsh ancestry?  You don't know?  If you don't know, why are you saying it?
-Paragraph about knee injury and being "sidelined" from wrestling... that's when he "decided" to become an actor.  Wiki writer has psychic powers to know the content of the human mind!  Would be better if you could say something factual, e.g. "Cruise said this was his first exposure to acting and he liked it or decided... etc"
-The whole part about scientology.  Lot of assumptions there.  His wife got him into it?  Where is this coming from?  How does anyone know this?  Would Cruise himself even know this for sure?
I don't think I can look at it any more.  
Oh, one more thing, what the hell is "litigation related to gay rumors?"  What a way to phrase it.  Duh!  People always say someone is gay... Duh!  Especially male actors .. Duh!  Can't you phrse this in some way that reflects that?  The way it's phrased now, it sounds like a man who has spent much time and effort "covering the truth" with litigation.  Defamation by sneaky innuendo.  This is what's wrong with wikipedia.
-good luck SecretaryNotSure (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  9th grade book report 

message: I'm not sure if this is true but i've heard that tom cruise has something to do with a remake of the anime movie akira. Does anyone know anything about this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.112.172 (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akira 

message: His first leading role was not Risky Business, which premiered August 5, 1983.  His first leading role was Losin' It which premiered on April 8, 1983.  I am aware that Risky Business was a more successful film but the opening paragraph cannot ignore the facts.  Perhaps something saying that Risky Business launched him to stardom would be acceptable but it wasn't his first leading role. 208.179.66.68 (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Leading Role 

message: Since this isn't a real Wiki article, any "some Wiki editors are more equal than others" who might want to update it can say that the recruitment video is still up on Gawker.com as of June 7, 2008.
:We do not link to copyright violations, per policy on external linking --Rodhullandemu 13:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gawker video still up 

message: We must get the article right.Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".
90.135.206.57 (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually only one citation in that subsection out of six is to Radar, and in any event it is attributed as such to the source, and has been discussed in other sources as well.  No need to remove the entire subsection, IMHO.  Cirt (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the information appears in high quality sources, then those sources should be cites. Otherwise, it is very important that the claims be immediately removed.90.136.154.130 (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons 

message: It appears odd that "Scientology" appears to be subordinate to a heading "Controversy". The article would probably read much better by having that reversed with Scientology as a heading and Controversy beneath it. This might be a section that 'ol Cruise himself should submit some text for; or his publicity agent. A person's beliefs are one of the most important aspects about them. This section should be written as well or better than any other part of the page. It defines a large part of the man. Signed ... mdvadenoforegonMdvaden (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears the authors have taken the approach of highlighting other important controversies, such as jumping on couches, his choice of publicist, cybersquatting, homosexuality, and a video where Tom Cruise is "manic-looking." 90.136.199.82 (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology / Controversy 

message: Feel free to ignore me if you disagree. But, I believe that the image in his infobox should be replaced with one of the other two free images in the article. In my opinion, it should be a front-facing picture rather than one taking at an awkard angle. 65.1.193.60 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: He looks like a dork.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.52.161 (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone change the picture 

message: I hear he's quite short. Numbers and figures, please! --Sigmundur (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How tall is Tom Cruise? 

message: *
*
:Not sure if this has received coverage in other sources yet. Will do some research and look into it. Cirt (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tom Cruise, Scientology Peeps Accused of Bribing Judges" 

message: *, .
Cirt (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Cruise talks with UK's ''Mirror'' 

message: why do we never hear about his other kids(the 2 he and nicole adopted)? ever since he and katie had a child, it's like the 2 he adopted don't exist anymore.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kids? 

message: In the sentence below the plural verb 'are' should be the singular 'is' because the subject of the subordinate clause is 'one', which is singular, and not the plural noun 'producers':
'Economist Edward Jay Epstein argues that Cruise is one of the few producers (the others being George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Jerry Bruckheimer) who are able to guarantee the success of a billion-dollar movie franchise'
Date 13/12/08
There is also another error in punctuation. Under "other litigation" in the discussion about the Buffalo Beast scandal, there is a mention of "Fields' bluff". Because "Fields" is a singular name, the possessive form of this should end the same way as "person's", even though it ends in an "s". This should read "Fields's bluff".
Date 15/12/08
Nutty.cashew (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the second change. I'm not sure I agree that the first suggested change is right, I've made no changes there. If anyone else agrees or disagrees with it go ahead. Thanks. ~ mazca t|c 12:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical error 

message: Please add the following to the end of Tom Cruise#Management of United Artists:
:In August 2008, Wagner stepped down from her position at United Artists; she retains her stake in UA, which combined with Cruise's share amounts to 30% of the studio.Paula Wagner plans to step down at United Artists, an August 2008 article from the Los Angeles Times
Thanks. 72.244.204.202 (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks for the update. ~ mazca t|c 12:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add update about Wagner's departure from UA 

message: There is some strange links in the See Also section- a town in the British Isles, and a Human Rights Commission. Any reason why? 86.11.172.114 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced in the article that he is of Welsh descent, therefore gone. He is mentioned in the Citizens Commission on Human Rights link, but only in passing, so unless it's referred to in the article, it's gone. --Rodhullandemu 21:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange links 

message: First of all, the language of "gay rumors" has got to go. I know, I know, you're speaking in the fast-paced, no-time-for-filler lexicon of the everyman, but it sounds like adjective + noun phrasing, which ain't no gosh darn good on this here (y'all ain't about t' call it Wackypedia, are ya? That's my gosh-darn patent!) Also, it references these "gay rumors" as if we've just read all this stuff explaining them and are just now getting a little more info, but there's nothing else about them! It's just "gay rumors", that's it. Where's the actual "issue" addressed in this article, you know? 24.3.14.157 (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rumor has no place in biographies of living persons, so in order to keep them in the article, they need to be packaged in such as way as to lend them credibility. 90.136.134.197 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

text: "Rumors of homosexuality" ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.202.230 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tabloid speculation about Cruise's sexuality? --Ashley Rovira (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litigation over gay rumors 

message: The sentence "His family later moved from Kentucky so his father could take a position as a defence consultant with the Canadian Army" needs to be moved. Maybe to the beginning of that paragraph. As the sequence is now, he's already in Canada (Gloucester is part of Ottawa, Ontario). Can someone make that change?  BB, Dec. 9, 2008.
This entire section is a mess, from a structure and grammar standpoint. He "started acting" twice - in grade school and again in high school. It is unclear where he lived when. The entire section needs to be rewritten. ~jb 10 Dec 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.121.186 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family and early life 

message: ===Welsh?===
The category Welsh Americans is present, yet the article does not mention him having said ancestry. All that is mentioned of his ancestry is German, English and Irish. I've seen elsewhere the claim of Welsh extraction, but not from what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Can anyone provide proof that any of his ancestors were from Wales? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: The category Welsh Americans is present, yet the article does not mention him having said ancestry. All that is mentioned of his ancestry is German, English and Irish. I've seen elsewhere the claim of Welsh extraction, but not from what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Can anyone provide proof that any of his ancestors were from Wales? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Welsh?

message: The article mentions his father's ancestry, but does not mention his mother's. Does anyone know her extraction? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Maternal

message: As most of us know, quite a big deal was made in the process regarding the subject's wedding to Katie Holmes. On that basis, and given the historical importance most people place on their wedding cetermonies, maybe it would make sense to add a bit to the sections on Rogers and Kidman. Specificaly, maybe just adding that Emilio Estevez was the best man at the Rogers wedding, and that the 10 guests at the Kidman wedding at Telluride, Colorado, included Dustin Hoffman, who had worked with Kidman on Billy Bathgate and Cruise on Rain Man. These statements can be verified in the USA Today article "Cruise and Holmes set a date for November" by Karen Thomas, published on October 25, 2006. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed additions to article 

message: Anyone got a source for the rather wierd pronunciation claimed at the top of the article? (I don't think we really needed to be told how to say "Thomas" though.)  Flapdragon (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of "Mapother" 

message: The link to A Few Good Men is to the play, not to the film.  he starred in the military thriller A Few Good Men' should read  he starred in the military thriller A Few Good Men (film)'.
A Few Good Men (film)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.185.86 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect links 

message: The article is far too short for someone who, for over twenty years, has been one of the world's most famous, successful, popular actors and whom has received a huge amount of media coverage. Owing to the level of his fame and infamy, tboyshousands of people must have read / edited this article. Is there any reason why so much known, relevant, important information is missing from this biography? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of dedicated scientology drones who scrub celebrity scientologist's articles to remove their more ridiculous exploits.  You can try filling in some of Tom Cruise's more absurd antics, but don't count on them lasting for long. 24.6.159.76 (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major omissions 

message: There is nothing mentioned about what happened to his father after the parents' split up. Did he remain in contact with his children? Did he remarry or have any other children? He died in 1984, aged 49 (confirmed by Social Security Death Index), yet that fact is not mentioned in the article. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Father

message: When did his mother marry Jack South? Is she still married to him? Does Cruise like or dislike him? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mother and stepfather

message: The article states she used to be his publicist, but he later demoted her. What position did he demote her to? Does she still work for him? If so, in what capacity? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Eldest sister

message: As someone who is famous for being a convert to Scientology, readers will want to know about any previous religions he belonged to. There is mention in the article of him previously being a Catholic, but no statement of when that was, nor for how long. Had he ever been any other religion? What was he raised as?  Nietzsche 2 (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous religion(s)

message: Her page mentions his relationship with her, yet this article fails to. They cohabited for over two years, prior to his marriage to Mimi Rogers. Had they ever met prior to being cast together in Risky Business? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Rebecca de Mornay]]