Talk:John Travolta

Kawasaki

Kelly Preston claimed her son had Kawasaki and that it causes seizures. Not calling them liars or anything, but the article cited E! online as being a source of the medical info. Someone who has more time, maybe add another credible medical source for that.VatoFirme (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple issues that come up with this. First of all, it's quite rare that a medical professional would make a public statement about someone's diagnosis, so in most all cases, what the public knows about someone's medical condition is what is stated by parents/family members or spokespersons for them. In fact, at this point, every news source about this death is going to say the same thing. I'm not sure what you would like for us to add. A statement from their doctors to confirm he had been disgnosed at one time with Kawasaki syndrome? It is well beyond this article to add a "credible medical source" to confirm or dispute what Preston said. That would constitute synthesis in the form of "Preston said this : one medical source said that Δ Preston must be lying". In fact, there are credible sources online that confirm that one of the lesser symptoms happen to be seizure. [1] [2] Medline and the NIH are good enough to convince me. Nothing anywhere is saying he died because of Kawasaki syndrome. They are saying 1) he was diagnosed with it at a young age; 2) he had seizures in the course of it and 3) it is suspected that a seizure was related to the death in some way. It's a fact that seizures can cause brain damage that will result in continued seizure problems later. If the press reports he died because of Kawasaki syndrome, then it is a problem with how it is being reported. Meanwhile, it is beyond the scope of this article, mostly because of WP:BLP issues, to try to refute the statement that Preston has made, either by eliminating mention of it in favor of an article from the New York Daily News that actually contradicts itself (see the statement that seizures aren't associated with Kawasaki and then at the end which mentions research that indicate it might well be), as well as the links above that I posted which say that seizures can be associated with Kawasaki syndrome, or by publishing our own medical analysis, or by adding content that tries to correct the assumptions that are being drawn from how things have been worded. We must be careful not to make the error of synthesizing an interpretation of any of this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the snippet about seizures, mainly because the source given at the end of the sentence is certainly not one that has any medical knowledge, it is just an article. If someone would like to add back in about seizures (controversial, since it is actually claimed by various sources, including Kawasaki support groups, that seizures are not (or extremely rarely) connected to Kawasaki) being a side effect, I think a credible medical source needs to be added. And I agree with the things you said about it being difficult with medical information to actually source claims, but since people will no doubt we stopping by wikipedia to read about Jett, it would be misleading at this time to claim that seizures are a side effect of Kawasaki, and that this isn't simply something that media have taken from a Kelly Preston quote, which is essentially where it has come from. Perhaps, it would be more prudent at this time to say that Kelly has spoken of seizures as a side effect of Kawasaki, just to put the information out there, but not allow the article to read as if this is proven without a source to back it up. I don't want to get into an edit war with anyone over this, but I think this is an important point to consider. Sky83 (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Going back on myself, I've read through it, and put a sentence which is perhaps more reflective of the conflicting opinions of different apparent experts. If anyone wants to change it, I won't argue, but I do think this sentence is perhaps more fair considering how authoritatively it was worded before. Sky83 (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree with you Sky, but I think people are going to kick up a fuss because it draws attention to the fact that seizures are disputed more than other aspects of Kawasaki disease. I think you should take off the sentence that says about medical professionals, but ask for a citation. I would do it but I'm not a registered user and this is protected now. I guess because of Jett....anyway, I do agree with you entirely, but I think for now you should aske for the citation instead. Just my opinion, but I don't know lol. 90.213.11.208 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks and I agree. Have added the citation request. Best wishes. Sky83 (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the more sources I read the more I find that in fact do support that seizures can occur with Kawasaki syndrome, mostly as a result of high fever. Other comments made by Preston regarding that say that at the time when this occurred, Jett was 15 months old, and was running fevers in the range of 104-105, which is a febrile point at which convulsions can occur. Because it is a lesser result from the syndrome doesn't make it any less possible in this case. A source was present, the statement was attributed to Kelly Preston, which is perfectly valid for inclusion, and it is beyond the scope of this article to verify or discuss the yeas and nays of the syndrome. At this time, a source is presented that supports that Preston said the syndrome can include seizures. I honestly think the more salient controversy about this was that initially, the wording being used in the press implied that Jett had Kawasaki syndrome which was causing his seizures now and professionals were disputing that, which from my reading of the literature is true. The fact is, however, as I said earlier, if a medical condition occurs such as this, which included prolonged high fever and resulting seizures, damage can occur which could lead to a continued seizure issue. As I said though, it is beyond the scope of this article to support or refute issues concerning the syndrome, since no medical authority is going to go on record as saying Jett Travolta had or didn't have Kawasaki syndrome at 15 months of age, or that he had or did not have seizures at that time. We'll know much more in another 24-36 hours, it can wait with the citation of Preston's statement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to possibly agree with you, but that source is a dead link. It needs to be cited from somewhere else, and considering this is a very important point, there must be a correct link. I'll leave it as it is for now, but if there is no other source provided, then I would suggest reverting it until one can be found, since it currently gives the impression that there is a source quoted that provides evidence (or at the very least medical comment) that Kawasaki causes seizures. I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but I think it technically would've been better to leave the source (had it been a live link) at Preston's comment, and find another one for the medical opinion to avoid giving a misleading impression. Sky83 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit - the source does seem to be correct now, it may just have been high traffic although that's pretty odd, but never mind. I still maintain that the source should probably stay at Preston's comment though. It's just more factually accurate, considering that Preston has no medical authority. It currently reads as though there is a source confirming that Kawasaki causes seizures, which is incorrect. People will be reading Wikipedia at this time, and may get the wrong impression from the way that is worded. Sky83 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

One more point, from reading that source, it doesn't cite Kelly Preston as saying about the side effects, the article just happens to state it, the only thing credited to Preston is the acknowledgement that Jett had Kawasaki. I'm not sure E Online is a reliable medical source to be honest. The sentence and the placing of the source still seems misleading to me. Again, I don't mean to be pedantic, but it doesn't look right! Sky83 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The source sentence says "Preston had said her son suffered from Kawasaki disease, which can cause a variety of painful side effects, including seizures, and sometimes lead to heart problems." To me, that sentence reads as attributed to Preston. As I said, there are other sources out there from earlier interviews. I'll try to find one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought when I first read it, but that's not how it actually does read. It's a small detail, but again, if the description of side effects are going to be attributed to Preston, there should be a source that says she said it and that one doesn't. To avoid confusion, I think it's a good thing you're looking for another source, and since Preston mentioned Kawasaki officially, it's likely that there is a good source out there that actually contains a quote. Good luck :). Sky83 (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I made some adjustments to the sentence, using what I could find quickly. Perhaps this will clear up the issue for the time being. As I said, more information will be forthcoming in the next day or so, I think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh that looks good. I agree, in a week from now that whole section will likely look totally different. For now it's just best to be as accurate as is possible and it definitely looks a lot better now. Sky83 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems the police reports have been leaked that have John Travolta admitting his son was autistic. Anonymous (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.155.151 (talk)

"It seems"?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for new/unregistered users lock

I really think that an update tag needs to be placed at the TOP of the article, and although I'll conceed to the current event tag being put at the top of the article, what's currently there is speculation. I believe that it should be listed that the causes are NOT yet known. He has been known to have seizures but the exact cause of death is not known yet. Wikipedia is supposed to represent a NPOV, not a tabloid slant.

Also, Given the sensitivity of the death of his son, speculation and the Travoltas' involvement in the controversial religious movement of Scientology, I think that's enough to lock the article. That's just my 2 cents though. Thanks!WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a valid request, but it was done late Friday afternoon. [3] Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not want the article deleted. Instead, I would like the autopsy report attached to the article. If the autopsy report documents that Jett was not on anti-seizure medication and had a history of seizures then the article would provide evidence of the harm caused by the teachings of Scientology which teaches that psychiatry and psychiatric drugs are evil. Alternatively, if the autopsy report documents that Jett was taking anti-seizure medication, then Jett's death would not cast a shadow on the teachings of Scientology.72.104.44.152 (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. No one is even considering deleting this article.

2. There is no chance that the autopsy report will be "attached" to this article. The findings indicated no foul play.

3. There is no expectation that the autopsy report would ever be released, news reports said results will be released to the Travoltas.

4. Despite your apparent ignorance of the wonders of modern medicine, not every individual with a history of seizures is on, is automatically given, or requires anti-seizure medication, which is, contrary to your belief, between a patient and his or her doctor, and not subject to your approval. Nor is it indicated for each and every person with a history of seizures.

4. If this young man was not on anti-seizure meds does not indicate that had he been, he would be alive. If he was on anti-seizure meds, they apparently didn't prevent this death.

5. Anti-seizure medications are not psychiatric drugs, they are prescribed by consulting neurologists. Epilepsy is not a psychiatric disorder, it is a neurological one.

6. This death does not provide evidence of the harm caused by teachings of Scientology, unless you can prove conclusively that this young man was prescribed anti-seizure meds, that he was not being given those meds, and that the reason is because the Church of Scientology took proactive measures to prevent him from receiving them.

7. Kindly do not interpose your opinion about Scientology onto this event, expect the Wikipedia article to help support your viewpoint about it, or expect that it can be used to indict that particular belief, its adherents or its effects.

8. There is a myriad of websites available on which you can expound upon your viewpoints about Scientology, this is not a forum page, it is for discussing improvements to an article.

Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so hasty to condemn this medication topic. Mr. Travolta himself has put the issue on the table, after announcing he used religious "detox" on his son. No need for censorship here.Ykral (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No one is censoring anything, there is a hard and clear line between censorship and fringe/conspiracy theory exploration that would constitute WP:BLP violations, original research and synthesis. The issue is beyond the scope of this article and I see very few options for it that doesn't constitute POV pushing and investigative "journalism". It isn't going to be included because there is nothing from reliable sources that will support this. There is a vast difference between whatever constitutes "religious detox" and the question of this boy receiving anti-seizure medications. There is also a vast difference between an encyclopedic biography and an anti-Scientology forum/bulletin board. It isn't going to be included until an outside, reliable, respected third party source publishes conclusions about it. Don't use the talk page as a POV forum. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 projects

Noticed that the John Travolta page reference to the 2009 project Old Dogs states that his costars will be Robin Williams and Bernie Mac. But Bernie Mac passed away in August 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.188.153 (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why, yes. Yes he did. And if you would check the article Old Dogs (film), you would see that it states that it was Bernie Mac's last role before his death. Films often have final appearances. Have you heard of The Dark Knight? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Weird omissions

This article feels like it was white washed by an agency or something... Not one mention of Scientology? How about the (mostly) unrelated kiss photo? All a person has to do is google "john travolta kiss" to see how big a deal that was. Why are other articles about actors and politicians so thorough and even handed and not this one? --32.147.10.205 (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you didn't really read the article very thoroughly. Otherwise, you would have seen "Travolta also starred in Battlefield Earth (2000) based on a work of science fiction by L. Ron Hubbard, in which he played the leader of a group of aliens that enslaves humanity on a bleak future Earth. The film received almost universally negative reviews and did very poorly at the box office. The film won a Razzie Award for Worst Film of the Year at the 2000 awards. Travolta, who joined Scientology in 1975 and endorses Hubbard's teachings, had hoped that the film would be well received and be the first in a series of Hubbard film adaptations."

I'm fairly certain that qualifies as covering his involvement to some degree. You also don't particularly characterize this article in comparison to "other articles and politicians" very well. Some articles are quite thorough and some are much less detailed. As for "the kiss", Wikipedia does not tend to publish gossip and innuendo. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

there is a reason this article remains a C and not a B, GA or (maybe in the far, far future) a FA, and a tertiary reference to the faith that is so closely identified with the subject (only less so than L Ron or, perhaps Cruise) is a clear example. I'm not talking about muckraking or calling out his faith, but it would provide a complete picture ofthe man if we could include more information on what's guided his personal life --and it doesn't have to be spun in either a positive/negative light, obviously. The current mention is laughably brief, especially when you consider how important to him it was to make the film. As for the kiss, google it and tell me that there's any possible way to deny it happened, other than the uncertain context --the undeniable fact that it happened brings up why it was so heavily covered. The logic there is like saying you can't write about Il Divo's supposed mob machinations while in office; regardless of whether it was true, the incident colored the news. You could say the same thing about whether Mel Gibson or Kramer sincerely believed their own verbal gaffe/rants. The point there was it became a significant moment in the career, for good or bad. Of the two issues, the very light touch on his personal faith in Scientology is the most glaring weakness. --32.150.31.163 (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying "the kiss" didn't happen. But what are actually the facts about it that make it important enough for this article? No facts at all, other than the people involved. Everything else that made it "so heavily covered" is speculation, innuendo and gossip. Wikipedia doesn't do those. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason this article does not yet have a higher quality rating, but it is not solely because Travolta's involvement in Scientology isn't covered in-depth. It's because his entire biography isn't covered in sufficient depth to warrant a higher rating. No one at all has said the coverage is sufficient, but - you said in your first post that there was not a single mention of Scientology in the entire article, and factually, that is not true. You also claimed it was whitewashed, and if that means that gossip, rumor, innuendo and slurring is absent, then that is true. But it is not whitewashed to prevent the mention of Travolta's involvement in his religious choice. Outside the death of his son, it may be the more better covered aspect of the article. A lot of care was taken to respect WP:BLP concerns regarding Jett Travolta's death because of liability issues otherwise. That same principle applies to ascribing any importance to some tabloid coverage of what is essentially an ambiguous kiss done by someone who does seem to kiss others more frequently than the silent straight world would like. We cannot ascribe meaning to that here, despite what tabloids did with it then. I'd have to see clear evidence that ambiguous photo had any impact on Travolta's career. After Battlefield Earth, Travolta's career did take a bit of a plunge. The films over the next 3-4 years were not big hits or bring critical acclaim - Domestic Disturbance, Swordfish, Austin Powers in Goldmember, Basic, Ladder 49, A Love Song for Bobby Long, The Punisher and Be Cool were not huge, though some of them were quite good (IMO). "The kiss" photo was published in 2006 and following that, up to now, his films have been well received and in most cases huge hits. Wild Hogs, Hairspray, Bolt and Old Dogs have all been wildly successful. It could be argued that the kiss photo had a positive effect, except there is no evidence it had any effect, and certainly not a negative one. I would agree that the article is in need of expansion in all areas, but there is little chance that the kiss photo would be part of it due to the innuendo and tabloidy gossip nature of it in absence of anything else. WP:BLP prevents that from happening. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth

In Battlefield Earth Travolta did not portray an alien. Rather he led a group pf haumens rebelling against alien hegemony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.199.141 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are mistaken, perhaps it was the make-up. Travolta did play Terl, one of the aliens along with Forrest Whitaker. Actor Barry Pepper played the leader of the rebels. -- Horkana (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not an article written for People magazine

--32.147.10.205, I really do not understand what it is you "feel" has been White washed. You seem to be implying that Travolta lives some sort of really weird, SECRET life, far different from the one he lives, which the public is aware. Until we can cite ACTUAL RELIABLE sources to any so-called weird life or "unspoken" whatever’s relating to Travolta, nothing of the sort belongs in Travolta's Wikipedia article. Yes, he is heavily involved in Scientology, and YES, many consider Scientology to be a cult. However,,,,,,,,,,,, Travolta himself has NEVER done anything WEIRD or off colour to justify placing it in his Wikipedia article, at least, not anything that can be verified. As far as "the kiss" goes, which you are referring, Wikipedia is NOT a gossip column. Yes, there was one picture of Travolta kissing another man but NEVER an explanation. Wikipedia is not the venue to "SPIN" an inference as to what "the kiss" was all about. Wikipedia is also not going to imply Travolta is a "closet" homosexual. You may believe Travolta is a "closet" homosexual, and if you do, you may write about it, just not here in his Wikipedia article. --Irshgrl500 18:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Error on Jett's birthdate

He was born in 1993, not in 1992 as the article states. This is wrong on Kelly Preston's page, too 99.138.172.254 (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jet's birthdate is correct at 1992

My source was wrong. The correct year is 1992. 99.138.172.254 (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"C" rated article

The overall "tone" of this Wikipedia article is slanted and presents Travolta in an almost negative light. The original contributor and main editors (if there is in fact more than one) seem to have a problem with Travolta and his membership or involvement in Scientology. I am sorry but like it or not, Travolta and his wife are Scientologists, and it is NOT up to the contributors of Wikipedia to slant this fact in a negative light. For example; the structure of the article being sectioned into "downturn" and "resurgence,” this is simply NOT necessary. Why? Many, many actors have gone through periods of having box office failures in their careers, only to star in a box office success, which puts their career back on the map. Also, there is entirely too much verbiage on "speculative" notions of Travolta's life. At times, this article almost reads like something out of People magazine. Sorry, until there are edits made to "tone" down the biased slants, I give this article a C-. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshgrl500 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry! I forgot to sign!--Irshgrl500 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshgrl500 (talk • contribs)

I really don't see where you determined that. In fact, Scientology is mentioned twice in the article, and is done so in a totally neutral way: "Travolta has been a practitioner of Scientology since 1975 when he was given the book Dianetics while filming the movie The Devil's Rain in Durango, Mexico." and "Travolta, who became a Scientologist in 1975 and endorses Hubbard's teachings, had hoped that the film would be well received and be the first in a series of Hubbard film adaptations." Both of those statements are factual and neutral. Battlefield Earth is considered one of the worst films ever made, sorry, but it's true. Travolta backed the film and starred in it and it flopped completely. We do include notable flops in these articles, not just in this one. There isn't much else to say about it. We don't go into extreme detail regarding someone's religion unless that person is primarily involved in that religion. Travolta is an actor, membership and practice is all that can reasonably be included. It's disengenuous and unfounded to suggest the article is negatively slanted because he is a Scientologist. That's basically bunk. It is proper to report negative career points vs. positive ones, and Travolta has in fact discussed that his career was all but washed up until Quentin Tarantino cast him in Pulp Fiction. That is a bottom line fact. Further, I see nothing speculative about his life. Everything about his personal life is completely sourced and written in a neutral manner. I really don't see your issues, unless you came into it expecting to read it in a negative manner and thus found it that way. For the record, a C quality article has to do with something other than a "grade". It has to do with comprehensiveness and sourcing. Your grade has nothing to do with the quality assessment, which is for something else entirely. What you say here is contradicted by what you said in the section "Weird omissions". The truth is, the article isn't biased, on either point. A lot of effort has gone into avoiding that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Travolta's help to Haiti

John travolta says he was gonna deliver 4000 tons of help in haiti with his own boeing plane, but instead we discover that it was only 4 tons and the reste of the plane was full of scientologist who came to convert the most Haitian possible in this "exeptionnal opportunity" for them to expand themselves in the carribeans. Why does the article doesn't talk about it ? Isn't there any freedom of press in Haiti ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.6.174.244 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Should we add this under philanthropy and then add another sub heading controversy ? --Polysophia (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I have seen no source to say 4000 tons, that's a lot of aid, I doubt his private plane would hold it. No, there is no controversy here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

LGBT?

-- Text has been removed as a possible libel on the basis of policy on biographies --

Can you provide any evidence that has made any statements regarding his own sexual orientation or that he has given any opinion or support regarding LGBT? The picture of him kissing Jeff Kathrein is all the media have when they claim he is bisexual or homosexual. Jim Michael (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Rumors of Bisexuality

How can you have a biography on John Travolta and not discuss the rumors of his bisexuality? The National Enquirer ran a piece a decade ago on his having been blackballed from a L.A. County country club for making a gay pass in a locker room and Howard Stern has reported that he has been banned by a major hotel chain for allegedly cruising the exercise rooms. Kelly Preston also has publicly commented on the rumors that he had a gay affair with a gay porn star who claimed they were lovers, in which she admitted they were friends but denied they were lovers. This isn't exactly Tom Cruise we're talking about where the rumors are just will o' wisps and he is willing to go to court in an American court room (with its much higher bar against successfully proving libel, rather than court shop in the UK). The bisexual rumors have been around since he became a star in 77 and was having an affair with the much older actress. 76.119.163.157 (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Son's death

i thought jett hit his head on A bathtub help,please?--71.67.179.158 (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

10,000 what?

The Personal life section says that "Travolta and Preston donated 10,000 to the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund while on a trip to South Africa." 10,000 what? US dollars? South African rand? Cows? Brick houses? Children? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL I was about to start my own section on the very same point. By pure happenstance I looked at the end of the page and found the same question. So what is the answer to the 10,000? The fact that it's been two weeks and no edit has been made, I am a testament to that, is indictment to the block on this page. See WP:OWN to get my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.16.52 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither of you is particularly likely to get a response unless you add an {{editrequest}} to this page. Only then may other editors be alerted that there may be a problem. WP:OWN is irrelevant since the article is more or less permanently protected against vandalism. However, if you care to do some research, then add the above template, citing what the 10,000 was, it will be flagged and fixed. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 23:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is sourced, someone just forgot to add the $ dollar sign. I must say, I'm completely in the dark on how ownership figures in to editors not noticing this post. Was it turned down? Was it dismissed here? Nope. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)