Talk:Tom Cruise: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:38, 23 June 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tom Cruise article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 30 days

Tom Cruise was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 5, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance).

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

getting into hollywood

as the article reads, there is a huge gap between his "discovering acting in high school" to "breaking into movies." Does anyone know how and during what time he got discovered, or was able to break into hollywood?

Reportedly Tom Cruise's getting into Hollywood is possibly connected to Scientology. Tom Cruise was a friend of John Biezel, who upon moving to Hollywood changed his name to John Travolta. He became active in Scientology in addition to acting. When his friend and fellow Scientologist wanted to get into Hollywood, John Biezel/Travolta helped with introductions through the church...or so I understand it. I would love documentation if anyone has it. ElBrazoOnofre (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akira

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)[reply]

First Leading Role

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)[reply]

Gawker video still up

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 --Rodhull andemu 13:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakup with Paramount section needs to go.

Please see WP:RS#News_organizations. Radar is nothing like the high-quality publications mentioned in the policy. Even better, read the entire WP:BLP section to see how terrible this article is.

News organizations

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

We must get the article right.^[1] 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.^[2]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.136.154.130 (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology / Controversy

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 ... mdvadenoforegon Mdvaden (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.
^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006

[Jimbo4-1] Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.

[Jimbo-2] Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 :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.  [[User:Cirt|Cirt]] ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 ::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.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/90.136.154.130|90.136.154.130]] ([[User talk:90.136.154.130|talk]]) 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Scientology / Controversy ==
+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 ... [http://www.mdvaden.com mdvadenoforegon][[User:Mdvaden|Mdvaden]] ([[User talk:Mdvaden|talk]]) 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)