Jump to content

Talk:Tom Cruise/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
I would like to say that his role in the Outsiders was not mentioned.

"Suri" is not "princess" in Hebrew

I speak fluent Hebrew, and "priמcess" is not "suri" but "Nesiḥa" (נסיכה). It doesn't even sound alike! I believe this should be mentioned in the article, after Cruise's explanation for his doughter's name. Tamarah (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Please draw your attention to the first paragraph which serves as the introduction to this article. I believe it to be of poor quality in regards to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The article begins with an unusual amount of praise for someone who is considered to be rather controversial, to me this is not fitting with the quality that Wikipedia represents, particularly with the notability of the subject in mind. - 122.106.159.64 (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Braces

Tom Cruise had braces for his teeth, didn't he? How come it's not mentioned anywhere in the article? 76.127.217.214 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Because so have millions of other kids, and it's just not relevant to mention. Rodhullandemu 23:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
But he had braces as an adult, not as a kid. 76.127.217.214 (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Even so, many adults, especially when they've become rich(er), also have orthodontic treatment. In fact it's pretty much the norm for Hollywood and I still don't see it's worth mentioning, unless some reliable source has made a big thing of it, or he's commented himself.

Welsh-American?

There have been a couple of threads in the past questioning whether Tom Cruise has Welsh ancestry or not, but they have been inconclusive. The relevant section on Cruise's page: “Although Cruise's paternal surname (Mapother) is Welsh, it appears that his paternal great-grandfather, Thomas O'Mara, was of Irish ancestry and adopted his stepfather's surname, becoming the first Thomas Cruise Mapother.” has a citation from genealogy.com, allowing a view of his ancestry back to Thomas Cruise Mapother (1876-1939). That is, there is no citation for the claim that “... his paternal great-grandfather, Thomas O'Mara, was of Irish ancestry ...” - which was added 15 Dec 2008, with a reference to his Welsh roots removed at the same time – and there is no mention of an O'Mara on the family tree. The edit appears to have been a spoof/vandalism. These WP:RS references show Cruise to have Welsh ancestry: BBC, BBC(again), Western Mail and The Sunday Times. Unless anyone can find a WP:RS that his paternal ancestry is Irish rather than Welsh, we should make appropriate amendments. Any objections? Daicaregos (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Given there were no objections raised, I made the changes. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, this source seems to show the confusion over his real paternal linage being O'mara who was aparently adopted..this is what cruise says in his actors studio clip and this.Acots studioclip.Tom Bio.

Height

Many people are curious about his height. Why not state the facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.125.109 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Confessional files

Added new subsection, [1]. -- Cirt (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Risky Business

The assertion in the first paragraph that Risky Business was his first leading role is incorrect. Risky Business premiered four months after Losin' It, which was Cruise's actual first leading role. The Risky Business article states, that Risky Business "is best known for being the film that launched Tom Cruise to stardom." The first paragraph of this article should be edited and the quote from the Risky Business article might be a good jumping off point for that edit. 97.127.80.3 (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A solo hero in a film does not mean that the said person has a stardum. Risky Business was Cruises' first real major role; turn out to be a more B.O collective & critic-lover. SAY NO TO RACISM 19:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by KATURQUOTE (talk • contribs)

Kasyap7 (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC) In acting career section and under subsection 2010,it is stated 'Cruise confirmed that he will star in a third Mission:Impossible sequel' which is erroneous.Cruise already acted in MI3 and the new one is MI4.The citation provided also states the same.So please see that it is corrected.

M:I 4 is the third sequel to Mission: Impossible. Nufy8 (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced info removed

Removed unsourced info tagged with cites needed, from WP:BLP article [2]. Please do not add back wholly unsourced info to this article. Please only add info to this article, if cited to independent reliable secondary sources. Thank you. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Placenta

How come there's no mention of Tom Cuise's plan to eat the baby's placenta? Did someone post it already? Even the BBC has articles about it as seen on this web search. I'll look up the info and i'll add it.--Luisdanielmesa (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP. TbhotchTalk C. 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I question the relevance of this. I don't think it's a major event when you look at Cruise's life and career as a whole, and I also don't think the media reported it to such an extent as to make it relevant. A lot of things have been written about Cruise (and any other celebrity you care to name) but we don't report it here simply because it's been said and can be reliably sourced. A lot of stuff is just not important enough, and I think this is an example. I don't see how WP:BLP restricts mentioning this as it's been reported by as reliable a source as BBC. There's a good reason for not including it, but violating BLP isn't it. Rossrs (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
BLP apply here, because Cruise made a joke about "when my daughter born I'll eat her placenta", since then people (like always) believed it, after this, he stated that he was joking and he didn't eat her daughter placenta, so this is a rumor. TbhotchTalk C. 01:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of BLP. If Wikipedia says "Tom Cruise said blah blah blah" that is completely different to Wikipedia saying "The BBC reported that Tom Cruise said "blah blah blah"". BLP demands that we reliably source any material that we provide, and, as with all edits we make to any article, BLP or not, we must always do so accurately and with the correct context. It's not a rumor that Cruise made the joke. BLP does not protect Cruise from himself. It's the misreading, misinterpretation and misreporting that's the problem and that must be avoided. Rossrs (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree. A quick survey of the sources suggests that Cruise seemingly intended it as a joke, and was seriously reported. On the one hand, you might think he'd have learned by now, and on the other, you might think that this is less than a storm in a test-tube. Question is whether he is yanking our chain or whether we disregard this as a non-notable blip. Up to you. Rodhullandemu 01:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a shame he didn't make the joke while bouncing on a couch somewhere. That would have been more fun to report. I'm inclined to agree with you that it's a non-notable blip, and I think it falls under WP:UNDUE. If we report it, especially without providing the context that Cruise may have intended and of which we can't be completely sure, we would be implying importance for something that is pretty minor no matter which angle we're looking at it from. Rossrs (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, now, if he said he planned to use Placenta Helper, it might make it relevant to the manufacturer, otherwise, I agree. It doesn't belong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
That would certainly change things. Perhaps we need to look at a complete transcript. Are we sure he didn't intend to say, "When my daughter's born, I'll eat my hat", and it just came out wrong? Placenta/hat. I often confuse the two in conversation, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. I'm growing more certain that it does not belong. Rossrs (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it actually was "I'll star in Combat? Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Acting

So, he made one movie in the 1980s and later another one in the 1990s?

Who the hell is editing this? A bunch of 5-year-olds? 92.36.148.191 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There used to be more information, much of which was removed by these edits [3] [4] [5] and others around the same time. Much of the removed information is probably correct, but since it had no citations for sources, it can't justifiably be reverted back; for someone with the time and desire to improve the article, this would be a good starting point. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

other movies

You also need to state that he was in the movie The Outsiders based on the novel by S. E. Hinton relesed in 1983.

Although he does not have a big role in the movie it was one of his frist movies and i think that is really important. It also was how all the big directors and casting directors came to know about Tom Cruise. So if you are gunna give infomation about big movie stars atleasst get ur facts strat and give good infomation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.251.1 (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Third sequel, fourth film

Hope this clears that up! :P Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Some lady was just on letterma talking about how she hit the panic button on the cruise house not knowing what it did and it resulted in people rocking up to confirm that he was OK. It did happen and should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.253.37 (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.132.88.207, 3 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I'd like to edit Tom Cruise, because today is his birthday, and he is now 48 instead of 47. 86.132.88.207 (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

His age automatically gets updated by Template:Birth date and age. Good point though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Katie Holmes 2006 or 2005

Maybe I am missing something obvious here, but the info box says that he has been with Katie Holmes from '2006 to present'.
Yet further down the article it says that he was jumping on the couch on May 23, 2005 professing his love.
Does it mean that she was not his girlfriend yet? They were not officially a couple, (although jumping on the couch like a mad man would make it somewhat official to most).
So, what is wrong, the Oprah show or the info box? FFMG (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see now that 2006 is their wedding year, it wasn't immediately obvious to me. I should have read the article more carefully. FFMG (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mbpruitt42, 25 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This page moves from his last film in 1989 to his 1994 film Interview with a Vampire. Missing from this timeline is Cruise's role as stock car driver Cole Trickle in 1990 Days of Thunder. This is too legendary of a movie to leave out folks! Not too mention that it was very profitable.

Mbpruitt42 (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please be more specific. Include the actual "edit" you wish to be made. Don't forget sources! --ANowlin: talk 02:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from OccultusGladius, 25 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Could you please add the fact that On 25th July 2010, Tom Cruise posted the fastest lap time for 'A Star in a Reasonably Priced Car' on the Top Gear TV show, knocking his fellow guest, Cameron Diaz, off the top spot that she'd only just aqquired before Tom's time was posted.

A Link to the Top Gear wiki entry as proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_(series_15)

OccultusGladius (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I know this did actually happen as I watched the show, but other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a reference sadly. You could try looking on TopGear's own site for something on this. Chevymontecarlo - alt 08:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Not done: One Wikipedia article can't be used as a source for another Wikipedia article. Sorry. Please re-request once you find a proper source. --ANowlin: talk 02:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources. If you can supply such a reference, please reinstate your request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

I think this might border on trivia, this is only the 5th episode of the season and only 10, or so, guests did the lap in that car.
This might also explain why Cameron Diaz had just beaten the previous best.
Maybe if he is still first at the end of the season it could be mentioned, but until then I am not sure. FFMG (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Top Gear

Tom and Cameron Diaz recently appeared on the BBC's Top Gear, and Tom got the new fastest time as the 'star in the reasonably priced car'. Maybe have a sentence about that somewhere in the article? --92.10.8.225 (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Se post immediately above yours. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How tall?

Since it is often the subject of curiosity, shouldn't we at least state how tall he is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.85.6 (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

BBC: Tom Cruise secretly recorded by Scientology

According to The Sunday Times (sign up for access[1]):

The Headley’s claim that “auditing” – the Scientology confessional – was spied on routinely. Marc says: “I installed over 100 rooms that had two cameras and a microphone in them where people would get auditing. In most cases, it’s inside of a smoke detector or a picture frame, pinhole cameras.”

Marty Rathbun, who like Rinder is now an independent Scientologist, used to audit the stars and says: “There is a specific VIP room for all the A-listers – John Travolta, Tom Cruise. And I audited Tom Cruise there. There is a shelf in there that has a false glass mirror panel – behind it there is a video camera.”

Claire Headley told me that she saw a tape of Cruise being audited by Rathbun: “Marty, sitting in the chair, the e-meter [an electrical gadget used in auditing] and on the opposite side of the table Tom Cruise, holding the cans [electrodes connected to the e-meter]. I saw those videos.” Did Cruise talk about personal things? “Absolutely.” Things that Cruise would not want people to know? “Absolutely.”

The church says secrets are scrosant, but it does film auditing confessionals for training and monitoring; it adds that filming is not done secretly and it has been announced publicly.

Mention of this should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MNCLarke (talk • contribs)

Well, it already is, just not yet with this very good WP:RS secondary source. Will read this, and do some research, and post back here. -- Cirt (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rathbun ceased the filming of Cruise in 2002, because he felt it was unethical

This is an important point, and it reflects negatively on the WP:BLP person, Mark Rathbun, to have removed this crucial piece of info. This should be added back. -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nicolas Sarkozy in the Scientology section?

"In 2005 the Paris city council revealed that Cruise had lobbied officials Nicolas Sarkozy and Jean-Claude Gaudin..."

I'm fairly sure Sarkozy deserves a bit more of a title than "official"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.171.199.243 (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.211.64.137, 1 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Sir!! Tom Cruise is my favorite Actor and I didn't like this first picture so Please change it yourself or I'll do it for you !! Just give me permissions :-) 117.211.64.137 (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The images chosen are based on a consensus of those writing the article, but also need to be compatable with Wikipedia's free licence. If you know of a free image that you think is better than the current one, please suggest it on this page. -Atmoz (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A Few Good Men

Maybe its just me... is there a good reason why this movie is not mentioned anywhere in the article? It is one of my favorite Cruise movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.205.162 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit too lazy too look back the history to conform or point to this, but as a wild-ass-guess, I remember a while ago (maybe a year?) there used to be a lot of references to movies he was in that didn't include cited sources; I think there was also a bit of "fan cruft" too. Somebody went through and made a fairly massive set of deletions of this material, which would be technically justified according to BLP policies but seemed a bit disruptive at the time. AFGM may have been included in those deletions.
OK, strike most of that... I decided to check back instead of telling you to do so. The changes, including deletion of AFGM, were here (several edits summarized in one change record). If you want to expend some time and effort on the article, you could try to find some sources and replace parts of the deleted information. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

But this isn't just a movie where Cruise is 18 yrs old just out of acting school, or on screen for 2 min. It starred Cruise, Demi Moore, and Jack Nicholson (with one of Nicholson's most quoted lines, "You want the truth..you can't handle the truth!"). Maybe it just wasn't as memorable as "Cocktail".. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.205.162 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not arguing the point, just trying to answer your original question by pointing out what seems to have happened. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca DeMornay?

First of all, this person is not even mentioned in this article. Who is she? If you look at the article of the person in question, the source attributed to them "dating" merely states that they lived together (perhaps as a room mate? stating anything else is original research), but nowhere in that source does it say that they "dated and lived together for 2 years". Source it properly, and then readd it. Ugh... edit warriors. Nymf hideliho! 01:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Added to Relationships and personal life section, along with two refs. Jim Michael (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The first source does not say that they dated, and the second source is vague at best. Nymf hideliho! 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Three refs now, which I think are sufficient. Jim Michael (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No. There is one ref that does not mention it, one ref that is extremely vague, and one ref that uses Wikipedia as a source. Nymf hideliho! 03:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry

I Heard he has Korean and Nigerian blood in him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.239.238 (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of that? Jim Michael (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

William Mapother

A lot of articles list famous relatives. His first cousin is William Mapother, who played Ethan Rom in Lost. He seems to have something of a working relationship with Cruise as he's appeared with him in 4 movies, albeit in smaller supporting roles: Minority Report, Born on the Fourth of July, Mission Impossible 2, and Magnolia. 90.209.80.247 (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant enough to include in this article. According to Mapother's article, his father and Cruise's father were brothers, but it is unsourced. Jim Michael (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Theexister, 10 May 2011

There is a factual error in the first line that begins as "Cruise first debuted in a major movie in Francis Ford Coppola's film The Outsiders, released in March 2003. His first leading role was in the film Risky Business,[1] which was released in August 2003." where in the year of of the movie releases are incorrect (2003 should instead be 1983) and should instead read as "Cruise first debuted in a major movie in Francis Ford Coppola's film The Outsiders, released in March 1983. His first leading role was in the film Risky Business,[1] which was released in August 1983."

The source for the movie "The Outsiders" is Wiki itself - [2]. The source for the movie "Risky Business" is Wiki itself - [3]. Theexister (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been fixed.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Tom Cruise filmography should be merged into Tom Cruise#Filmography because the former is really just a list with no sustainable, stand-alone content.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Filmography

Does anyone know why Tom Cruise's Filmography is the only one with the Actors Salary, Film Budget, and Film Gross columns. I think this is great info, but I do not see these columns on other actors that I spot-checked.

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmec (talk • contribs) 13:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing needed

I believe the movie Legend, a cult classic, directed by Ridley Scott and released in 1985 has been omitted. I think that information should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital7 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with user Digital7 this movie should be included as he played the lead role. J vigue 99 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Scientology edit - Being consistent

I push to remove the below per the discussion on the David Miscavige Wikipedia page:

“In May 2010, a former high-ranking member of the Church of Scientology, Mark Rathbun, said that Scientology leader David Miscavige had ordered that Cruise's auditing sessions be secretly videotaped.[86] [87] Rathbun had himself been responsible for performing auditing counseling with Cruise.[86] The Church of Scientology has stated that taping of confessional sessions is done openly, for monitoring and training purposes, and that the confidentiality of anything discussed in such sessions is "sacrosanct".[88]”

If there is no objection, I will go ahead and remove the post. NestleNW911 (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed. NestleNW911 (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
what were your reasons for removing this section? Monkeymanman (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin Coffeepusher made this exact same edit (as I posted the link to the edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Miscavige&diff=425533814&oldid=425532044). This edit should be removed for similar reasons.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It does seem a bit of an odd inclusion seeing as the group claim that the tape was basically stolen and not secretly recorded. But even then if Rathbun did say that then there may be a case for its inclusion. But i dont think it really matters. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm

Quote: "Cruise's latest starring role is in the historical thriller Valkyrie, released on December 25, 2008 to box office success." Surely "Cruise's next starring role... he has done several films since then. --86.148.212.28 (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I went ahead and made that change. We could probably add "Rock of Ages" and "Oblivion" to this section as well, as there are numerous sources to support his involvement in both films just don't use IMDB.com as it is not a WP:RS. Scifilover386 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Scientology section

Youtube is currently hosting the Tom Cruise scientology video, as well as Gawker. Users should be directed to the URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0 or http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress, or it should at least be mentioned that the video is currently still available for viewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinjohnson (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Education

Tom also attend St. Xavier High School in Louisville KY for some period of time. See the page St._Xavier_High_School_(Louisville) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz55555 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Four Octave Vocal Range

somebody should add him to Category:Singers with a four octave vocal range
see http://www.yourmovies.com.au/slideshow/?site_section_id=1005&start=17&action=view
--60.241.153.201 (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

MOVIE

Tom Cruise had another previous movie that is not here. I forgot the title but it is a fantasy film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.114.249.129 (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You're likely thinking of 1985's Legend, listed at Tom Cruise filmography.

How tall is Tom Cruise?

I've heard that he is 'short.' Does anyone know an exact height? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.16.67 (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC) According to "CelebHeights.com" Cruise is 5 ft 7.75 inches or 172cm tall http://www.celebheights.com/s/Tom-Cruise-3.html How important this is to the character of Mr.Cruise is pure conjecture. Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Tom is about to star in a new movie with Julianne Hough. He is playing a rockstar who has a crazy attitude.CamerynL7 (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Eyes Wide Shut "erotic"?

The article refers to Eyes Wide Shut as an "erotic Stanley Kubrick film". I think calling a film "erotic" is probably NPOV or editorializing (especially without citation or qualification) , and the movie is pointedly not erotic, despite its depiction of sex and nudity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.34.69 (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 February 2012

Tom Cruise also appeared in the 1983 ensemble movie "The Outsiders", as Steve Randall 50.13.201.73 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Which is appropriately listed at Tom Cruise filmography (linked from Filmography section), since his total filmography is long and discussed enough to justify a separate article, with highlights here. Dru of Id (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Tomcruisebynapsync.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tomcruisebynapsync.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tomcruisebynapsync.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Top Gun" Tom Cruise`s Return

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Paramount has confirmed Tom Cruise`s announcement that after 26 years to record a continuation of the cult movie "Top Gun" Tom Cruise who brought international fame.93.137.44.29 (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No "Gay" or "Gay-rumored" category?

I know there are a lot of people categorized as "gay" in Wikipedia. Probably it would be a problem to categorize Cruise in this way (think of the edit wars and/or lawsuits). But isn't there a "gay-rumored" category that would be clearly applicable? The phenomenon of famous people who are rumored to be gay/queer/GLBT or whatever is a real phenomenon and should be categorized as a phenomenon in a Wikipedia article or group of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.184.24 (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No. --MrIndustry (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WHAT DOES IT MEAN "NO"??? WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE??? I SAY YES!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.34.97 (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. Hell no.--MrIndustry (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT would explicitly prohibit any such category. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Rumours are just that - rumours. This is covered in the article just in the way it should be, with details of the 1998 litigation. If Wikipedia had a category for people alleged to be gay it would feature pretty much every celebrity in history. Smurfmeister (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Divorced all 3 wives when they were 33

Seems like an odd coincidence but perhaps worth mentioning. Its easy to verify with the marriage dates and ages of respective partners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrrealtime (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Its an interesting coincidence, but not encyclopedic, and not notable unless its being discussed in an non-rumor was by WP:RS Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Are any of these sources good enough?: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Acoma Magic (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 June 2012

Please add that Tom attended high school in Glen Ridge, New Jersey.

http://www.biography.com/people/tom-cruise-9262645

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/entertainment/film/biography/artist/tom-cruise/biography/124?page=2


JLed111 (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: I would like other (uninvolved) people's input on whether the sources are reliable or not. Andie ▶Candy◀ 13:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: 1st site doesn't state the name of the school; 2nd site is not an entertainment site, so not really a secondary source - more like a ternary source Mdann52 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

More Sources naming the school

http://www.snakkle.com/galleries/looking-back-tom-cruise-turns-50-birthday-before-they-were-stars-now-and-then/tom-cruise-yearbook-high-school-young-1980-photo-gc/

http://www.publicschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/51833

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000129/bio

If you can't trust imdb and his year book photo, what can you trust? A simple google search will yield many more results confirming this edit request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLed111 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia explicitly does not trust IMDB for biographical information. The yearbook photo trust depends on the soruce that yearbook photo comes from. Please read WP:RS Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you're still unsure if a particular source is reliable after consulting the guideline, you can post a question here. (Please check the archives at that page before you post.) Rivertorch (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

New section

Tom Cruise played Steve Randle in Francis Ford Coppola's 1983 film "The Outsiders".Pmdwyer (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

missing in the article Tom Cruise The Messiah of scientology

Is Tom Cruise The Messiah? / The Church of Scientology certainly thinks so. What if they're oh-so-horrifically right?
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Published 04:00 a.m., Friday, February 2, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/morford/article/Is-Tom-Cruise-The-Messiah-The-Church-of-2620118.php

--Über-Blick (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would we include this?--MrIndustry (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012

Tom Cruise is Divorced to Katie Holmes Anathi100 (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source showing that a divorce decree has been issued. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 July 2012

Please edit the article for non-factual, uncited, undocumented data: "Kidman...three months pregnant...later miscarried. "[53]" reference links to an invalid page; Twisted incorrect gossip.

==> Actual Truth: Kidman Clarifies - MISINFORMATION: "Kidman; Vanity Fair; headlines...lost a baby"

      • "It was wrongly reported," she says, by everyone who picked up the story, claiming she'd had a miscarriage, when what she'd had was an ectopic pregnancy. "So it's huge news, and it didn't happen."marieclaire - Nicole Kidman Interview

71.53.191.241 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't she have miscarried after the pregnancy because it wasn't viable in the first place? Just wondering (pending input from other editors) Andie ▶(Candy)◀ 16:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Kidman stated her real medical diagnosis, ectopic. 2. Kidman stated medical diagnosis was "wrongly reported" as miscarriage. 3. Medical diagnosis for "miscarriage" is separate and distinct from "ectopic". 4. Wikipedia does not contain Opinions or Semantics on medical terminology, medical diagnosis, or wrongly reported tabloid trash.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.191.241 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 17 July 2012

Closing the edit request to clear the backlog. Is there a reason you can't create an account and edit it yourself?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

LGBT Project

After reading through this discussion several times, there are those making the case that by including the LGBT Wikiproject template is a violation of the policy on biographies of living persons. Those opposing the removal of the template state that the tag simply offers a way of noting that a page is of interest to a group of editors and does not signify that the article in question is actually GLBT. The citation of WP:BLPCAT does not apply here. WP:CATEGORIES may not carry disclaimers, but this is not a category, it is a template, and as pointed out it does carry a disclaimer. Further, the articles sexuality is discussed in the actual article, making the template on the take page a) relevant and b) a much smaller BLP concern than the much-higher profile articlespace page. This specific template was added in November 2009 making the previous RfC on Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people extremely relevant. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should there be an LGBT template at the top of the talk page? It doesn't seem like it since there's no evidence that he's gay and he likes to sue over this. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Responses

No threaded replies here, please. (Note: the first 21 comments in this section were copied from the "threaded discussion" section below to make the RfC easier to close.)
  • Hmm. The only reason I can think for the project template to be there is because he sued people who said he was gay. The template doesn't mean that anybody thinks he's gay, just at least one editor in the LGBT project thinks this article falls within the scope of their project. I personally don't think the template needs to stay, but let's wait a day or two and see if anybody objects to its removal. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't care either way. I do think, though, that it's up to the members of any given Wikiproject to determine which articles fall within the sphere of interest of that project. Perhaps opening a discussion at the project's talk page would be the appropriate next step. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Close. A project is there to offer specialist help in their area(s). Cruise has a very long history of gay rumors, and him contesting these rumors. The wiki project is there to help resolve common questions how to resolve these issues and inform in these areas. The only reason to exclude them is a ridiculous assumption that LGBT-ness is contagious in the cyberphere. Insomesia (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude per my comments above. Acoma Magic (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC) [Note: see below, not above]
  • I don't see how the project could offer any specialist help in this case. I don't think the history is very long, there's just a medium length paragraph with the few lawsuits made. That's true, but it's not going to be required in this case. It's more so that the inner workings of Wikipedia, rather than just the article content, is being reported in the media. Having an LGBT flag at the top of talk could possibly cause some problems. Acoma Magic (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include if the reasoning for removal is that he isn't gay or threatened to sue. The LGBT project covers plenty of people who aren't gay, so there is no call to exclude him based on his being straight, and WP is not at legal risk. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude he's never done anything LGBT oriented, just because he's speculated as gay doesn't mean he needs this category listed.--MrIndustry (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the *huge* amount of press about Cruise's possibly being gay (Google News has dozens within the past week), I (as a member of the LGBT WikiProject) believe he's "of interest" to the project. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude Categories regarding sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the orientation in question. See WP:BLPCAT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude - sexual orientation categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly identified themselves with the orientation in question per WP:BLPCAT. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude. Insomesia is correct to point out that this is not about categories but, in his public life at least, Cruise is not sufficiently identified with lesbian, bacon and tomato issues to warrant a banner on the talkpage. Also Cruise is a scientologiser, which means he is not allowed to be gay, although he is empowered to authorise the execution of gay people through the subliminal voices in the TV set. Formerip (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Close: Why are non-members voting on this WikiProject's scope? It is nonsensical for editors who are not involved in the WikiProject to tell its membership what they are and are not interested in. As the relevant guideline cited above clearly states, they have a clear right to determine their own scope. If we are voting on whether to force this particular WikiProject to limit its scope, that's a drastic move with significant repurcussions, and needs a much more explicit proposal and a clear rationale for doing so. Also, could one of the above editors citing BLPCAT please explain how it could apply here? BLPCAT deals with descriptive category labels, which are rightly applied cautiously to BLPs. A WikiProject tag is not in any way a category, merely an expression of interest by an independent group of editors.--Trystan (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." He neither self-identifies as such and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to his public life or notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude -- the tag is plainly inappropriate. I'd love nothing more than for one of his wives (say, a future one) to get the impression that he's gay and be diverted to me instead as a result of seeing the banner here (yes, I know...), but this is a pretty obvious BLP call. If members of the LGBT project want to drum up interest in this article, they can use the talk page of that project; a banner here is not necessary for that purpose. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include. This is ridiculous. WP:BLPCAT doesn't even apply here, and a WikiProject can't be told what they should and shouldn't tag with their banner. No WikiProject can be, which was recently discussed at WP:MED and made explicitly clear there as well. The banner is not categorizing Cruise as gay, bisexual or transgender. It is only placing him within the scope of the LGBT project -- meaning articles that may be in need of their attention. This is done for anyone with a lot of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender content discussing them. Sometimes for people with only a little bit or just a decent amount discussing them. For example, Cher and Madonna aren't gay either, as far as we know, but they are also tagged as part of this project's scope. And before anyone says, "Oh, but Madonna has had same-sex sexual contact," I point you to the fact that, per WP:BLPCAT (the actual way it is supposed to be used), she is not categorized as lesbian or bisexual. So stop this silliness of trying to dictate what this project can tag with its banner. If Tom Cruise, with the abundance of content discussing him in a gay light, can't be tagged with this banner, then no straight person, even straight LGBT activists, can be. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include As IP 217 and Trystan say above, WP:BLPCAT does not apply here, it applies to the categories listed at the bottom of the article page. The LGBT Wikiproject tag does not categorize Tom Cruise as a LGBT individual or even being related to LGBT issues. Note that Wikiprojects Kentucky and Louisville are listed here. Cruise was born in NY, and neither 'Kentucky' nor 'Louisville' can be found in his article. But again, as another editor has noted above, it's up to the Wikiproject to decide if they want the tag placed, not for us. Jonathanfu (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Close The official guideline is at WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. This is not a decision up for discussion at an article talk page: either the WikiProject wants to help support the article, in which case they have an absolute, unrestricted right to announce that fact with their banner, or they don't, in which case they get to remove it. Neither BLPCAT nor any other consideration is relevant. If you disagree with the long-standing rule about this, please take it up at WT:COUNCIL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)}}
  • excludeA wikiproject can support any project they want and cannot be questioned on that. Fine. Ill take that as law. That policy/guideline/content says nothing about placing a banner or particular piece of content on a particular page. That content is still controlled by BLP, as is ALL content on an article, or article talk page. We are discussing the banner, not the wikiprojects participation. I think the dismissal of WP:BLPCAT is premature, particularly as being part of the wikiproject and having its banner placed specifically adds several categories to the page categorizing it as an LBGT page of a particular quality and importance, and also many projects maintain lists of articles and lists are specifically controlled by BLPCAT. - I acknowledge WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN and that my !vote is in contradiction. I think WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN cannot overrule BLP. If I wanted to put wikiproject:socialism on Barack Obama's page, how long would it last? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Close - as per the above regarding WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. A more fruitful discussion would involve perhaps changing the banner shell template to perhaps not show the project banner, because I believe there still is a banner shell which does not by default, show all the banners it contains, and, perhaps, seeking to have the project assessment categories hidden, something which, in general, might not be a bad idea. But those are all separate matters, and the main point of discussion here is already cleared covered by the now-often-cited guideline. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The Project tag makes no statement at all about TC's sexuality. It indicates he is of interest to the Project. And he is in deed "of interest". That's no secret to anyone who reads the LGBT press. Pretending otherwise makes it appear that WP's editors, and those who work on the LGBT Project in particular, are out of touch. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Close, it's up to the Project what they support, and the stated reason for removal right at the top of the page is that Tom Cruise might sue. Let's avoid the Chilling effect, remember WP:LEGAL and see if Cruise does sue. Which I doubt. A lot of people are seemingly misunderstanding the fact that a group of Wikipedia editors dedicated to LGBT issues are happy to help maintain this page. Hopefully they now better understand that there are no WP:BLP issues in a group of editors offering to help maintain the page. Hiding T 11:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Close - As has been already noted by several editors, this is well covered by WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. Even if there is a remote possibility that someone, somewhere will misinterpret the presence of the banner, this in no way approaches the legal liability issues that form the reasoning behind WP:BLP. VQuakr (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude. This is a WP:BLP issue. That policy trumps the preferences of a WikiProject. Tagging someone as part of the LGBT Project implies that they are LGBT themselves, or involved in pro- or anti-LGBT activism. It is absolutely not appropriate on this page, when Tom Cruise is not publicly known to be LGBT and is not active in LGBT issues. Robofish (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Include The underlying assumption of many of the exclude voters is that the placement of the LGBT studies project banner reflects the sexuality of the article subject. Which is ridiculous, the text of the banner is clear enough already, of course. But worse, this is an very interesting precedent, which if set, will be the start of a community-wide war as that principle is explored in the many other articles it could equally validly be applied to. Let us stand down. I do not believe that the community will tolerate a wholescale application of the principles being used to argue for the removal here, when it is extended to Julie Andrews, or Barbra Streisand, or Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist), not one of which meets the claims of the three categories Robofish enumerated above. (Sorry, Robofish, nothing personal, just making the argument.) Those three took me a few dozen seconds to find, want me to come up with more?
What is also evident here is a lack of proportion and common sense in some of the arguments being made. We're talking about a context where rumors of homosexuality are already discussed within the article text, a context which is a thousand times more sensitive than the talk page. The idea that this is the significant issue strikes me as grossly disproportionate.
This is not a BLP issue. The banner is clear enough. The context ( a talk page, article text mentioning rumors) is deeply mitigating. This is, instead, just a bad idea, with the potential to turn a fair bit of the encyclopedia into a battleground. Let's not. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Include. The inclusion of the subject in the LGBT WikiProject does not imply that the subject is LGBT themselves or active in pro- or anti-LGBT organizations. It simply implies an association between the subject and LGBT issues. That association clearly exists. --Batard0 (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Close The official guideline is at WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. This is not a decision up for discussion at an article talk page: either the WikiProject wants to help support the article, in which case they have an absolute, unrestricted right to announce that fact with their banner, or they don't, in which case they get to remove it. If you disagree with the long-standing rule about this, please take it up at WT:COUNCIL. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude - per "exclude" comments above. what's the point? Has he self-identified? Is the banner to be placed on all articles where speculation about the sexuality of the subject has occurred. What about WP:BLP? MathewTownsend (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude per above comments. Fabulinus 01:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Include First of all, I'm not too sure why an RfC has been started on this subject. This is not a category, it's a project tag, so every argument that people bring up relating to categories just isn't applicable. If the WikiProject's scope extends to include articles such as this, with people who have been consistently accused of being gay, besides just people who are confirmed as being gay, then I don't see why we should argue against that scope. I don't find that a tag indicating that the article is on interest to a particular WikiProject is incredibly offense, especially not in this case.--Slon02 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude: as a huge BLP problem. I might change my mind if the LGBT wikiproject template makes it clear that it's not meant to imply anything about the subject. (Same way that it's possible that an American Wikiproject might take interest in an article about Iraq or something. But one country adopting an article about another country would be such a rare practice that I have to wonder how the LGBT template got here if not to throw Tom Cruises's sexuality into question.) Shooterwalker (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'm softening my comment. I still think something needs to be done other than the status quo. I didn't see the "explanation" field from the LGBT banner the first time. It definitely is helpful. But it's not highly visible. I also appreciate that being mistakenly categorized as gay isn't an insult, and heaven knows I don't take it as an insult. But practical reality is that LGBT people have been given a stigma all around the world. Information does a lot to fight that stigma, but we have to acknowledge the practical reality of what it means when readers are misled about someone's sexual orientation. Take my "exclude" comment to also mean that I'd accept an alternative to taking the template down. Even a token effort to make it more clear that the LGBT template isn't necessarily saying anything about the sexual orientation of the subject. If I could make a ham-fisted sloppy suggestion, I know this situation wouldn't have come up if the "LGBT Wikiproject" were called the "LGBT Issues Wikiproject". But it's admittedly a little excessive to rename the project over this. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    The banner says "WikiProject LGBT studies". Numerous non-LGBTQ individuals are of interest to these studies. I don't expect any Wikiprojects to limit themselves in this way. If a subject is of interest then it's of interest. Insomesia (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude per WP:BLPCAT. Cresix (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Hmm. The only reason I can think for the project template to be there is because he sued people who said he was gay. The template doesn't mean that anybody thinks he's gay, just at least one editor in the LGBT project thinks this article falls within the scope of their project. I personally don't think the template needs to stay, but let's wait a day or two and see if anybody objects to its removal. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't care either way. I do think, though, that it's up to the members of any given Wikiproject to determine which articles fall within the sphere of interest of that project. Perhaps opening a discussion at the project's talk page would be the appropriate next step. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I already left a note on the project talk page notifying them of this discussion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be removed.--MrIndustry (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Close. A project is there to offer specialist help in their area(s). Cruise has a very long history of gay rumors, and him contesting these rumors. The wiki project is there to help resolve common questions how to resolve these issues and inform in these areas. The only reason to exclude them is a ridiculous assumption that LGBT-ness is contagious in the cyberphere. Insomesia (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how the project could offer any specialist help in this case. I don't think the history is very long, there's just a medium length paragraph with the few lawsuits made. That's true, but it's not going to be required in this case. It's more so that the inner workings of Wikipedia, rather than just the article content, is being reported in the media. Having an LGBT flag at the top of talk could possibly cause some problems. Acoma Magic (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Please provide any evidence that a project tag causes harm to those who make their way to this page.
That's not what I said. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The main reasoning is that he has very little connection to anything LGBT. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
That is entirely up to the WikiProject's members to decide. As Fat&Happy noted above, a WikiProject sets its own scope: "WikiProjects have sole and absolute authority to define their scopes: A group of editors cannot be forced to support any article that they do not wish to support, or prohibited from supporting any article that they wish to support."--Trystan (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The policy has a banner that says occasional exceptions may apply. Also, I don't think strong objections could come from the editors in the project anyway, only a preference for keeping it in the project. This is the main guideline and it's certainly not absolute authority. The possibility of reports in the media snowballing into lawyer action or even just cease and desist letters seems like a good case for an exception. I'm not claiming that it's a strong chance, but that it's enough to remove it. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no legal issue here, it's a project tag, nothing more. Insomesia (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not a category, merely an expression of interest in the article by an independent group of editors. If you convince the members of the WikiProject that the article isn't worthy of their interest and they choose to remove it themselves, that's one thing (though Insomesia sets out a good argument over why they might be interested above.) But the relevant guideline states "...if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article," (bold in original), which is fairly unequivocal.
To be clear, we aren't talking about whether we personally would classify this article within the WikiProject's scope, but whether we should step in and prohibit the WikiProject's members from simply expressing interest in the article, based entirely on the vague and extraordinarily remote possibility of a legal action that could hypothetically be based on someone completely misunderstanding what the WikiProject tag means. That is very flimsy grounds to start curtailing the freedom of a group of editors to organize their project as they see fit.--Trystan (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Exceptions can be made according to the template at the top of the policy. Obviously nobody (I hope) wants to force a delisting against their wishes but the banner was placed by just one editor who may not have even been a member. So since Tom Cruise has very little to do with anything LGBT then there may not even be much opposition from them anyway. Also, who's to decide whether the project wants to include it or not? There are hundreds of members. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
We aren't going to start telling Wikiprojects that they can't use their tag and decide which articles to help collaborate on. As noted above - "...if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article." Reasonable people can disagree but this issue has come up with other projects so there is a statement explicitly addressing the point. I think we may be done here as the concerns have been noted and answered. Insomesia (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't a reply to anything I said. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Tom Cruise is of interest to the LGBT Wikiproject, the rest of your concerns is held at WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN with numerous editors also stating support for the tag. I re-added it myself. Your issue is with WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN, so you can argue there to limit Wikiprojects Insomesia (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Given the *huge* amount of press about Cruise's possibly being gay (Google News has dozens within the past week), I (as a member of the LGBT WikiProject) believe he's "of interest" to the project. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think any of them are reliable sources for anything. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This has been covered in mainstream media, worldwide, by reliable sources as noted above. That he has had gay rumors is a well-known fact. For instance [MSNBC, [Rome News-Tribune], and Fox News. What his actually sexuality is remains his business but the rumors of gayness themselves have risen to a notable level. Insomesia (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It's rare for a celebrity to not be accused of being gay. There's also no evidence that this person is gay which further reduces the relevance of Cruise being in the LGBT Project. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, that's not the issue. he is the subject of perennial gay rumors, which themselves are notable, and the article already discusses his lawsuits over this very issue. The tag is staying per guidelines. Insomesia (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I already addressed that. Only one editor added it to the LGBT Project, that editor may not have even been a member, we don't know if the project opposes removing it, and the policy states that exceptions can be made. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Kettle, meet pot. That was my comment you inadvertently removed at the end. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I mistakenly removed your comment when reverting your deletion of my comments. I guess we should follow guidelines all around and also be more careful. Insomesia (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Close: Why are non-members voting on this WikiProject's scope? It is nonsensical for editors who are not involved in the WikiProject to tell its membership what they are and are not interested in. As the relevant guideline cited above clearly states, they have a clear right to determine their own scope. If we are voting on whether to force this particular WikiProject to limit its scope, that's a drastic move with significant repurcussions, and needs a much more explicit proposal and a clear rationale for doing so. Also, could one of the above editors citing BLPCAT please explain how it could apply here? BLPCAT deals with descriptive category labels, which are rightly applied cautiously to BLPs. A WikiProject tag is not in any way a category, merely an expression of interest by an independent group of editors.--Trystan (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Because the project member assume they can do what they want on Wikipedia does make it so. The project is overstepping its bounds and breaking some fundamental WP:BLP issues at the heart of all biographies. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, how could an expression of interest in the article violate BLP, since it makes no comment whatsoever on the article's subject? It's not about letting them do whatever they want, but about treating that one WikiProject banner as so uniquely poisnous that it needs special restrictions imposed on its use - restrictions not imposed on any other WikiProject, which are given freedom to determine their scope. A change that fundamental should be made to the guideline first, so that it is clear what principle is being applied.--Trystan (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." He neither self-identifies as such and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to his public life or notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude -- the tag is plainly inappropriate. I'd love nothing more than for one of his wives (say, a future one) to get the impression that he's gay and be diverted to me instead as a result of seeing the banner here (yes, I know...), but this is a pretty obvious BLP call. If members of the LGBT project want to drum up interest in this article, they can use the talk page of that project; a banner here is not necessary for that purpose. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include. This is ridiculous. WP:BLPCAT doesn't even apply here, and a WikiProject can't be told what they should and shouldn't tag with their banner. No WikiProject can be, which was recently discussed at WP:MED and made explicitly clear there as well. The banner is not categorizing Cruise as gay, bisexual or transgender. It is only placing him within the scope of the LGBT project -- meaning articles that may be in need of their attention. This is done for anyone with a lot of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender content discussing them. Sometimes for people with only a little bit or just a decent amount discussing them. For example, Cher and Madonna aren't gay either, as far as we know, but they are also tagged as part of this project's scope. And before anyone says, "Oh, but Madonna has had same-sex sexual contact," I point you to the fact that, per WP:BLPCAT (the actual way it is supposed to be used), she is not categorized as lesbian or bisexual. So stop this silliness of trying to dictate what this project can tag with its banner. If Tom Cruise, with the abundance of content discussing him in a gay light, can't be tagged with this banner, then no straight person, even straight LGBT activists, can be. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include As IP 217 and Trystan say above, WP:BLPCAT does not apply here, it applies to the categories listed at the bottom of the article page. The LGBT Wikiproject tag does not categorize Tom Cruise as a LGBT individual or even being related to LGBT issues. Note that Wikiprojects Kentucky and Louisville are listed here. Cruise was born in NY, and neither 'Kentucky' nor 'Louisville' can be found in his article. But again, as another editor has noted above, it's up to the Wikiproject to decide if they want the tag placed, not for us. Jonathanfu (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Close The official guideline is at WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. This is not a decision up for discussion at an article talk page: either the WikiProject wants to help support the article, in which case they have an absolute, unrestricted right to announce that fact with their banner, or they don't, in which case they get to remove it. Neither BLPCAT nor any other consideration is relevant. If you disagree with the long-standing rule about this, please take it up at WT:COUNCIL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)}}
  • Note. I've unarchived the discussion, because I don't think the close rationale given (that WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN is the only relevant consideration here) can be correct. Policies trump guidelines and WP:BLP is a relevant policy to consider. Formerip (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • We have been through similar discussions at a dozen different articles, including specifically for the LGBT studies group (e.g., Johnny Weir before he made any statements about his sexual orientation except that he considered it private). Every single discussion has resulted in an affirmation of the rule. BLP does not discriminate against or prevent any group of editors from supporting any article they want. Additionally, the LGBT studies project makes good use of the |explanation= parameter to indicate their reason for supporting an article, which makes the argument that for trumped-up BLP reasons, they aren't allowed to publicly participate in an article about a person who has sued over false claims that he's gay doubly silly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not it's silly looks to me very much like a matter of opinion, and we don't decide what should be done in particular cases by copying what was done in another case (the Johnny Weir article may not be absolutely comparable, or it may simply have been a bad decision). A non-trivial BLP issue has been raised in this case, and our obligation to at least give it consideration is not lifted by any local consensus, either at a wikiproject or in a past discussion. Closing in favour of keeping the banner requires a careful, case-specific analysis of whether there is consensus one way or the other on the question of whether the banner breaches BLP policy. Formerip (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Jerry Falwell. Eleanor Roosevelt. And Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people, which closed with a consensus that it was always acceptable for any WikiProject to tag any article they wanted to support. This is not a one-off, "maybe they made a mistake" thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A wikiproject can support any project they want and cannot be questioned on that. Fine. Ill take that as law. That policy/guideline/content says nothing about placing a banner or particular piece of content on a particular page. That content is still controlled by BLP, as is ALL content on an article, or article talk page. We are discussing the banner, not the wikiprojects participation. I think the dismissal of WP:BLPCAT is premature, particularly as being part of the wikiproject and having its banner placed specifically adds several categories to the page categorizing it as an LBGT page of a particular quality and importance, and also many projects maintain lists of articles and lists are specifically controlled by BLPCAT. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand this response. The official guideline says, "If a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner." The guideline therefore expkicitly does say something about them being permitted to tag any article they want. Have you not read the guideline at WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN yet?
Furthermore, the banner, precisely because it adds project-specific categories that are used by multiple bots, is actually necessary for the project's full participation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Close The official guideline is at WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. No evidence whatsoever that this guideline will start being ignored and evidence has shown that the LGBT tag, in particular, has been targeted by these rather fruitless discussions with the result that they have always been left in place. Insomesia (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Close - as per the above regarding WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. A more fruitful discussion would involve perhaps changing the banner shell template to perhaps not show the project banner, because I believe there still is a banner shell which does not by default, show all the banners it contains, and, perhaps, seeking to have the project assessment categories hidden, something which, in general, might not be a bad idea. But those are all separate matters, and the main point of discussion here is already cleared covered by the now-often-cited guideline. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Collapsing the project banner shell is easy [12]. Not sure how to have the categories hidden. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I know that you can define a cat as hidden, but I don't know how to do it, and I don't believe it's justified. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people did not suggest or support any such measure, and the response there was 6-to-1 in favor of the LGBT studies group being able to tag whatever they wanted. That's a stronger level of support than most actual policies had at the time of their adoption. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I was not necessarily meaning that hiding the categories in this particular case would be necessarily a good idea. That was more a general observation regarding the multiplication of assessment categories that some of these talk pages have. God knows, I am probably one of the worst offenders in adding those categories to talk pages, because I try to "locate" a lot of pages for various projects, and I've seen how some get so many categories that in some cases one literally has to scroll down to get through them all. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Project tag makes no statement at all about TC's sexuality. It indicates he is of interest to the Project. And he is in deed "of interest". That's no secret to anyone who reads the LGBT press. Pretending otherwise makes it appear that WP's editors, and those who work on the LGBT Project in particular, are out of touch. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing untrue about that, but I think there's a legitimate BLP issue about whether the tag - regardless of how it is intended or what it technically means - might be interpreted as Wikipedia saying something like: "obviously we can't right out say it, but he definitely is". Whether that's a strong enough objection is something that ought to be decided by a consensus-seeking discussion. Formerip (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You're right, of course, that someone could misunderstand " Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBT studies: Cruise has, on a few separate occasions, taken successful legal action against people who have claimed he is homosexual" as meaning "he definitely is", but I prefer to believe that our readers are neither idiots nor illiterate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Or, someone might not click on "show". Or, when they do, they might take in the rainbow flag and not read the text. Or, they might read the text and think "yeah, right, who d'ya think you're kidding with that supposed explanation". IMO, the thing turns on what we can reasonably expect. Formerip (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The article currently contains the passage:

During Cruise's marriage to Nicole Kidman, the couple endured public speculation about their sex life and rumors that Cruise was gay. In 1998, he successfully sued the Daily Express, a British tabloid which alleged that his marriage to Kidman was a sham designed to cover up his homosexuality.[73] In May 2001 he filed a lawsuit against gay porn actor Chad Slater. Slater had allegedly told the celebrity magazine Actustar that he had had an affair with Cruise. Both Slater and Cruise denied this,[clarification needed] and in August 2001, Slater was ordered to pay $10 million to Cruise in damages after Slater declared he could not afford to defend himself against the suit and would therefore default.[74] Cruise also sued Michael Davis, publisher of Bold Magazine, who alleged but never confirmed that he had video that would prove Cruise was gay. The suit was dropped in exchange for a public statement by Davis that the video was not of Cruise, and that Cruise was heterosexual.[75]

Does that need to be removed? After all, someone might see it and figure "Oh, gee ... look at all those cases. Where there's smoke there's fire. This guy must be queer as a three dollar bill." So we bwtter play it safe. And where then? How much do we need to decimate Wikipedia because some idiot somewhere might misinterpret the content and come away with a wrong impression?
As to BLP policies, in which I'm a big believer, exactly what content of that policy is the banner violating? Based on what the policy actually says – or what interpretation has a strong consensus at BLPN – not what it should say, or what you (generic) believe it implies? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The key to that is in the world you italicised. I don't suppose anyone would think we have to take into account the impression that might be given to a hypothetical easily confused reader, but we should take into account the impression that might be given to a reader that skims the information, taking in the tags and images without taking the time to read the whole article.
In terms of which part of our policy: BLPCAT clearly does apply, because the banner automatically tags with "B-Class LGBT articles" and "LGBT articles with comments". More importantly, we have a general responsibility to include material "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". The question is whether we are fulfilling that responsibility by putting LGBT tags and an image of a rainbow flag on a page associated with someone who appears to have a problem with being described as gay and/or what overriding important function the tagging plays. Formerip (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Applying such a strict reading of BLPCAT to WikiProject talkpage cats would have far-reaching consequences. For example, articles in Category:Critics of Scientology have been identified as of interest by WikiProject Scientology. If we assume that readers might misinterpret WikiProject banners or cats to imply that the article subject is a member of the related group, those too would have to be removed. The reasoning being applied here would mean that WikiProjects related to ethnicity, religion, and sexuality couldn't add any BLPs to their scope unless the article's subject is verifiably a member of the relevant group, which would be a signicant change, and a detriment to the ability of WikiProjects to bring their relevant expertise to bear on sensitive issues.--Trystan (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That "assume misinterpretation" reading would be disastrous. You'd have to ban all sorts of projects from being involved in BLPs: WikiProject Crime, because anyone they tagged would be assumed to be a criminal, rather than a lawmaker, victim, or law enforcement officer; WikiProject Terrorism, because anyone they tagged would be assumed to be a terrorist rather than a victim, a researcher, or a professional; WikiProjects Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc., because anyone they tagged would be assumed to be an adherent rather than (for example) a famous non-adherent; all race- and ethnicity-based WikiProjects, because anyone they tagged would be assumed to be that race or ethnicity; all political projects, because anyone tagged would be assumed to be a member of that political movement; and so forth. You'd even have to ban WikiProject Medicine from BLPs, because some idiot might assume that all BLPs were people with AIDS or psychiatric problems, rather than being mostly physicians and researchers.
We can't run a sensible project when we're making decisions based on how a small number of hypothetical people might maliciously interpret back-end category names on talk pages (which, if you're interested, this talk page attracts 0.07% of the readers that this article does. So that's malicious interpretation by a small number of the 1-in-1,500 readers who even see this page, and most of the talk page readers are regular editors who know what a WikiProject is). If you have a particular problem with the LGBT project's cat names, then I recommend that you make a proposal to change them at CFD, and then roll up your shirt sleeves and do the tedious work of changing it to whatever name is accepted at those discussions. I recommend that you stop trying to dictate to them which articles you permit them to track and support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
You're both running away with the fallacy that if a decision is made about this page is would automatically entail making a decision about a whole slew of other articles about a whole range of topics. Of course it wouldn't. Each article has its own context. Formerip (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No, we're assuming that if BLPCAT actually means "you can't use WikiProject categories that some idiot might misinterpret on talk pages", that it actually means "you can't use any WikiProject categories that some idiot might misinterpret on any talk pages, not just the particular categories that bother you or on the particular talk page that bother you". If you ban the LGBT studies project from BLPs of people who have famously not been gay, because someone might misinterpret it, then you really will have to ban the Judaism projects from the pages of people who have famously not been Jews, like Nazi war criminal fugitives, because someone who just glanced over the talk page and looked at the pictures might misinterpret it just as easily as someone who just glanced over this talk page and looked at the pictures might misinterpret the LGBT bannner. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
What's proposed here isn't a categorical ban. It's just about one article. If there are other articles which might have similar issues, then a discussion can be raised on those talkpages. If it turns out that there are a lot of articles with tags that raise BLP issues and editors agree to remove them, then they would be removed. Why would that be a problem? Formerip (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
A few comments. First, I think the article is generally what people see first. I rather seriously doubt people come to a talk page to look to see which banners are applied as an indication of content, particularly if, as in this case, the article itself rather clearly addresses the relevant material. Second, my own, personal, "best practices" idea of article tagging is, basically, if a real or rather reasonably presumable reference source on the broad subject of a given project might have significant information related to that subject which might be reasonably relevant, then that project can apply its banner. So, basically, I think probably, if Jane Goodall had a substantial article in an "Encyclopedia of Gorillas", that would be a reasonable cause for having the WikiProject Gorillas template added, even though I suppose some people might think of that as being a form of insult to her. Third, regarding this specific article, honestly, I think that there may be sufficient grounds for a FAQ section on the talk page. That FAQ could reasonably include discussion on the placement of this banner on this same page. I really think it would be hard for people to misinterpret the placement of a banner on this page if the FAQ section on the same page clearly explained its presence. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to a FAQ section including this topic. Every little bit helps, especially on sensitive topics. But I'm not overly optimistic that a reader who does not understand the current explanation, right next to the "offensive" rainbow flag (both of which, by the way, are hidden by default) saying, "Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBT studies: Cruise has, on a few separate occasions, taken successful legal action against people who have claimed he is homosexual", will search for and understand a similar explanation in the FAQ. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
FormerIP, when you assert that BLPCAT requires that WikiProject LGBT Studies not tag this article because someone might think it's a big "he's gay" banner, then you are in fact asserting that BLPCAT requires that no WikiProject tag any BLP if it might result in someone thinking that the WikiProject tag is a big "he's <fill in the blank>" banner.
You can't have it both ways. Either BLPCAT tells all WikiProjects that they aren't permitted to track BLPs if an idiot might maliciously misunderstand their interest, or it doesn't tell any of them that the standard for their participation is the inability of an idiot to maliciously misunderstand their interest. BLPCAT is not a Tom-Cruise-only policy, nor is it an LGBT-Studies-only policy. Whatever rule BLPCAT gives for this living person and that WikiProject, it gives for all living people and all WikiProjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's have more confidence that our readers are not idiots and that the few who even make it to the talk page would understand the (in)significance of announcements as to which projects are currently interested in the article improving. WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN means all Wikiprojects can determine their own interests and are not prohibited from showing interest in approving articles - on Wikipedia where everyone is encouraged to edit. We do not need a FAQ for the blindingly obvious, that cruise has had inuendo galore on his sexuality, which is in the article already. This article is not a test case (if it is you've lost) and we are not going to waste everyone's time arguing Wikiproject banners on talkpages to appease baseless "possible legal concern." If we had put this much energy into improving the article it would be amazing, instead we've retread well-worn territory. Insomesia (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Close, it's up to the Project what they support, and the stated reason for removal right at the top of the page is that Tom Cruise might sue. Let's avoid the Chilling effect, remember WP:LEGAL and see if Cruise does sue. Which I doubt. A lot of people are seemingly misunderstanding the fact that a group of Wikipedia editors dedicated to LGBT issues are happy to help maintain this page. Hopefully they now better understand that there are no WP:BLP issues in a group of editors offering to help maintain the page. Hiding T 11:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course. So you are in favor of eliminating all Wikiproject templates from BLP talk pages since they are not technically essential? VQuakr (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Of courth not, you thilly thing, you. Just the project that dare not speak its name. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, a WikiProject can't fully participate without its banner and categories on the talk pages of the articles they support. If the cats aren't on the page, then the WikiProject won't get notified of disputes, deletion efforts, nominations for GA and FA, etc. by their bots. It won't turn up on their project-specific clean-up lists, and editors won't know that the group is willing to answer and help with disputes about Cruise's gay-related defamation lawsuits. For example, with the banner and its cats, Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Article_alerts#RfC lists this RFC for anyone who wants to know what's going on at articles the WikiProject is supporting. Without it, they wouldn't know what was happening here. The banners and cats are an essential, integral part of the WikiProject's participation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Since nothing in WP:BLP is applicable here your argument that guidelines don't trump policies is invalid. If you can explain why you are continuing to misunderstand what the notice says, perhaps we can help. Which part of the banner is confusing you? And actually, the presence of the banner helps editors maintain this page,, and that's a good thing, right? Hiding T 11:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Actually, WP:BLP means that must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Unless someone can come up with a valid reason why this tag should remain, I'm removing this BLP violation. There's been plenty of opportunity to explain why this tag is necessary and yet no one can provide an adequate explanation why it's necessary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
          • That application of a Wikiproject tag is not adding information about a subject at all. It indicates a project considers the subject of interest to them. Insomesia (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
          • There's no contentious information about a living person here. It isn't Tom Cruise that is being categorised, it is the article talk page. That's a separate thing and therefore the policy is not applicable as has been explained before. You have your valid reason and I would suggest you cease from making threats in the face of a consensus making discussion. If you can't respect such a process, please refrain from editing Wikipedia. You don't get to decide your interpretation of policy is the only one. Per policy, All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Hiding T 12:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Close - As has been already noted by several editors, this is well covered by WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. Even if there is a remote possibility that someone, somewhere will misinterpret the presence of the banner, this in no way approaches the legal liability issues that form the reasoning behind WP:BLP. VQuakr (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Um, I mentioned the policy WP:BLP and why I did not think it applied to the inclusion of this WikiProject in my reasoning. Stating the obvious fact that guidelines do not trump policy is a red herring. VQuakr (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Um, it's not a red herring if you keep bringing up WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. Stop bring up invalid arguments and I'll stop explaining why their invalid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
To find a BLP violation here requires a novel, extraordinarily strict interpretation of the policy which would be wholly incompatible with a longstanding, widely-used guideline. When the issue of WikiProject tags on BLPs was raised at a previous RFC, the close indicated an appropriate venue for further discussion would be WT:COUNCIL. If such a prominent guideline is entirely out to lunch, and WikiProject scopes need to be significantly restricted accordingly, isn't that the place to start?--Trystan (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, it's not a novel interpretation; we've been down this road before. It is, imo, a wrong interpretation, and one that's particularly egregious in this case. A WikiProject tag merely indicates that an article is of interest to a WikiProject. It implies absolutely nothing about the subject. It's perfectly clear why this article is of interest to this WikiProject, and it's a perfectly appropriate use of the tag. I have seen no coherent argument for removal, just the same over-the-top BLP hysteria that comes to the surface with alarming frequency in discussions involving LGBT concerns. (Anyone determined to count "votes" should count this as an include.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Quest, "policies trump guidelines" isn't actually our policy. The very specific PROJGUIDE#OWN is more relevant than BLPCAT, and therefore we follow PROJGUIDE#OWN, while taking reasonable steps (e.g., filling in the |explanation= parameter in the banner) to minimize any potential appearance of conflict with BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This is WP:BLP 101. BLP applies to all pages, including talk pages. Contentious material about living persons - whether positive or negative - should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. This tag is obviously contentious. There has been plenty of opportunity for those in favor of this tag to explain why it is necessary. So far, nobody has been able to do so. Further, based on the comments above, the majority of editors are against this tag. Therefore, I have removed the BLP violation. Please do NOT restore it without concensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, this is not adding information about Cruise. And one look at the article confirms it's already there, with sources. Insomesia (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with Insomesia. Hiding T 12:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Having this article in the scope of this WikiProject is no more or less "necessary" than having any other article in any other WikiProject. The Cruise litigation has been addressed in several law and social science journals, which relate it to the broader issue of homosexuality as defamation. There is a clear benefit to having editors familiar with LGBT issues involved in how this sensitive content is (and is not) addressed in the article.
    I count 13 editors who favour keeping the tag or leaving it up to the WikiProject, vs. 8 in favour of removal. Which editors are you counting as for/against to get a majority for removal? I think the premature removal by an involved editor is unwarranted. I agree that the default is to remove contentious material about a person until a dispute is resolved, but here there is clearly no agreement for the novel proposition that the WikiProject tag constitutes material about the subject of the article at all.--Trystan (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Note that practically every editor supporting the exclusion of the tag states BLP concerns. A useful link on the Wikiproject talk page shows that a discussion has been before regarding Wikiproject tags and BLP concerns, with the consensus being that WikiProject tags identify that an article was within the interest of a group of editors rather than categorizing the article as belonging to a topic field. This tag is contentious only because editors misunderstand what a Wikiproject banner tag represents. Note that Wikiproject Louisville considers Cruise of interest, despite a complete lack of mention of Kentucky or Louisville in the article. As far as I'm concerned, any discussion regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the Wikiproject LGBT tag should not be one of policy, but rather one about whether or not Cruise is interesting to editors who have an interest in LGBT topics. Jonathanfu (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude. This is a WP:BLP issue. That policy trumps the preferences of a WikiProject. Tagging someone as part of the LGBT Project implies that they are LGBT themselves, or involved in pro- or anti-LGBT activism. It is absolutely not appropriate on this page, when Tom Cruise is not publicly known to be LGBT and is not active in LGBT issues. Robofish (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't imply anything except that one of Wikipedia's internal groups of editors, LGBT Studies, is interested in the development of this article. This is not about content at all, its a Wikiproject banner on a talk page. Please read the rationales others have already posted. Insomesia (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Include The underlying assumption of many of the exclude voters is that the placement of the LGBT studies project banner reflects the sexuality of the article subject. Which is ridiculous, the text of the banner is clear enough already, of course. But worse, this is an very interesting precedent, which if set, will be the start of a community-wide war as that principle is explored in the many other articles it could equally validly be applied to. Let us stand down. I do not believe that the community will tolerate a wholescale application of the principles being used to argue for the removal here, when it is extended to Julie Andrews, or Barbra Streisand, or Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist), not one of which meets the claims of the three categories Robofish enumerated above. (Sorry, Robofish, nothing personal, just making the argument.) Those three took me a few dozen seconds to find, want me to come up with more?
What is also evident here is a lack of proportion and common sense in some of the arguments being made. We're talking about a context where rumors of homosexuality are already discussed within the article text, a context which is a thousand times more sensitive than the talk page. The idea that this is the significant issue strikes me as grossly disproportionate.
This is not a BLP issue. The banner is clear enough. The context ( a talk page, article text mentioning rumors) is deeply mitigating. This is, instead, just a bad idea, with the potential to turn a fair bit of the encyclopedia into a battleground. Let's not. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
What are you referring to with "just a bad idea?" Insomesia (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Undermining WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN, and the wikiwide-drama that I predict will likely result if we do. See my first paragraph. --j⚛e deckertalk 12:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I assume ShooterWalker missed the bit in the LGBT banner which says "Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBT studies: Cruise has, on a few separate occasions, taken successful legal action against people who have claimed he is homosexual" and will amend his !vote accordingly now. Hiding T 23:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

All of you above who have said it's up to WikiProject members, TOTALLY misunderstand what Wikiprojects are. We are all Wikipedians here. Such discussions are in no way EVER limited to those who may decide to participate collaboratively in a Wikiproject. If the participants in a Wikiproject decided that they should make the entire text of an article in bold text, the community should obviously be allowed to comment, and so too here. In fact, technically, by commenting here concerning a Wikiproject template, YOU are collaboratively participating. Welcome! : ) - jc37 21:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right that WikiProjects, being voluntary groups of editors, do not get any special say compared to other editors in what happens to an article. This is explained in PROJGUIDE's WP:Advice pages section.
But you're wrong when you say that WikiProjects, being voluntary groups of editors, can be forced to publicly support articles that they do not wish to support, or that they can be publicly forced not support articles that they do wish to support. They have the same rights and responsibilities as any other editor, and that includes being permitted to choose to support whatever articles they want to support, not whatever articles you want them to support. They don't get to tell you what to support; you don't get to tell them what to support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no "us and them". It's all "us". We are not telling them anything. because them is us.
If in this discussion, "X" is decided, great. it absolutely doesn't matter where such discussion occurs. Just as anyone is welcome to comment in a discussion on a Wikiprojet talk page, everyone is welcome to comment here.
Or, as I said before: We're all Wikipedians here.
As for "forced to support" or whatever. this is a volunteer project. People can and do contribute as they are comfortable to.
And whether there is a big template or not on any talk page doesn't change that. - jc37 22:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
We are all Wikipedians, but we are not all members of WikiProject LGBT. There are two issues involved here: 1) whether this article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT's members, and 2) whether an expression of interest in the article by the members of that WikiProject constitutes a BLP violation. Obviously the second question is open to all editors to weigh in on. WikiProjects do not own articles, as set out in the WikiProject guideline. (This would also apply to a WikiProject that wanted to change an article to all bold text.) But also explicitly set out in the WikiProject guideline at WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN is that article editors do not own WikiProjects: "if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article." If there is a misunderstanding here, it's based on that unambiguous and, in my opinion, rather sensible guideline.
As the WikiProject's members have expressed and explained their interest in the article, it makes little sense for non-members to claim that the members are somehow mistaken in their expression of interest. The question then becomes "Is there a BLP violation that would warrant prohibiting the WikiProject from expressing that interest?" If tagging a BLP by WikiProject X is understood to imply that the article's subject is a member of group X, then surely we have a problem that goes far beyond the scope of this article and this WikiProject.--Trystan (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
"We are all Wikipedians, but we are not all members of WikiProject LGBT." - False. There is no restriction on participation in any WikiProject. And by participating in this discussion, you too are participating in the WikiProject.
And again, since the they in this case is us, your points are rather moot.
Oh and an editor is an editor. There is no such thing as an "article editor". So I think I may need to take a look at the page you're quoting from, as it may be helping to foster this mistaken misconception about collaboration on Wikipedia.
And by the way, just so it's noted, I have yet to personally comment on the particular question of whether the template should be on the talk page or not.
I'm merely attempting to clear up a misunderstanding about WikiProjects. - jc37 03:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Jc37 is completely right here. The WikiProjects exist only to help coordinate activity, call attention to discussions, possibly provide indications of relevant reliable sources for a subject, etc. In no way, shape or form is having one's name included in a list of members an essential, or even implied, requirement for membership in a WikiProject in some sort of formal way. Any editor is free to discuss any WikiProject's activities, or inactivities, at any time, and be given the same degree of attention and regard as those who have added their names to a WikiProject. So, yes, any individual, even someone who might be seriously and completely opposed to the stated goals of a WikiProject, as per its page, is as free to comment on the activities of any WikiProject as even the elected leaders of that project, if such exist. Policies and guidelines ultimately are the authorities here, and someone who is not a member of a given WikiProject might have a much better grasp of them than, possibly, any of the listed members of a given WikiProject. Therefore, yes, even the "KKK WikiProject," if it existed, would be free to comment here and be given the same regard as anyone else, particularly if their comments better reflect existing policies and guidelines. (I very sincerely hope that no one takes this as a indication from me that such a project should exist, by the way.) John Carter (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
In another sense, Jc37 is also completely wrong. A WikiProject is (is, as in "exactly equal to", per the official definition) a group of editors who happen to want to work together. We are not all part of that group. Many editors are not part of any such group, because many editors strongly prefer to work by themselves. No editor is part of every group. Any editor may choose to join any group—but no editor actually is part of every single group. It's not even humanly possible to be a part of thousands of groups.
Consequently, this really is an "us versus them": we are not all part of that particular group of editors. We are all part of the group of editors who chose to express an opinion about this subject, but we are not all part of the group of editors who happen to want to work together to improve articles related to LGBT studies. I'm not part of that group, at any rate, and looking over Jc37's contributions, I don't see any evidence that he's part of a group of editors that wants to work together on Queer studies-related articles, either. He's free to join, of course, but he doesn't appear to be interested in working with this group. So we are perhaps all potential members, but we are not all actual members, and it's the actual members of the group (regardless of whether they have officially declared their interest) that get to speak for the group, not people like Jc37 and I, who are definitely not part of the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
There is so much that I find wrong (and honestly offensive) about the above comment that I'm not sure where to start.
I didn't understand John Carter's choice of KKK reference when responding above, but apparently he was more keenly insightful of what is being discussed here than I was.
Anyway, we are all Wikipedians, there is no exclusivity to ANY discussion on Wikipedia. - jc37 15:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the offensiveness comes into this, nor what special relevance you think the KKK has here (I'm pretty sure John Carter just used it as a random example of something outlandish that would be given the same right to comment, not to imply anything along the lines of what you are suggesting.) Let's continue to AGF and recognize that we are just discussing finer points of WP policy and guidelines, not life and death matters.
I absolutely agree that anyone can choose to participate in any WikiProject, and that WikiProject members do not, in any way, own articles, or have any special say about the editing of those articles. But it is extremely reasonable to me that active participants in WikiProjects should be the ones to control the scope. WikiProjects include a set of tools, for which tagging is necessary, and it seems reasonable to me that the people who are going to use those tools get to configure them. An editor would have no more valid interest in removing an article from the scope of a WikiProject that they don't participate in than they would have in removing an article from another editor's watchlist. To me, this defends the principle that all editors are free to participate in any discussion on WP, rather than stands in opposition to it. As John Carter says above, WikiProjects do have people who oppose their goals: who don't want content on LGBT topics, or Christian topics, or Conservative topics, etc., to be improved. Allowing those editors to step in and prevent other editors from free collaboration by preventing them from addressing articles is not good for the project and is a gateway to an insane amount of drama.
But surely this is a discussion for WT:COUNCIL (a page that includes a FAQ restating that tagging an article "...is the exclusive right of the participants of the WikiProject.")--Trystan (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A possible solution?

I've thought of a solution to the above disagreement: {{WikiProject LGBT}} should include a disclaimer stating that it is not meant to imply that the subject is LGBT. Please comment on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Does the WikiProject Template need a disclaimer?. Robofish (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So long as that's applied to all religious, philosophical, political, orientational, etc., related WProjects, I have no objection whatsoever. And in fact, that's probably a good idea. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Singling out LGBT studies for this sort of "scarlet letter" would likely interest the academics just as much as Cruise's decision to sue people who claim he's gay. To make a serious proposal for a disclaimer, you have to first believe that there is something shameful about being associated with LGBT studies. If there isn't anything shameful, then there would be no desire for the disclaimer. If WikiProject AIDS had existed in the 1980s, there would probably have been someone calling for a disclaimer that some people tagged by the project are uninfected researchers and government officials rather than AIDS patients. Nobody ever calls for disclaimers about things that seem positive in their eyes, like a WikiProject Tall people or WikiProject Women's studies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Meh. Most people don't like being called G, L, B, or T. If the template causes problems, such as the one we currently have, then a disclaimer may solve the problem. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The fact that most people don't like being called gay (while they don't mind other equally erroneous claims, e.g., that they're tall or thin when they're actually short and dumpy) is exactly why it interests academics.
Additionally, the banner has a custom disclaimer that explains that the reason Tom Cruise interests people who are involved in Queer studies is because of his lawsuits, not because he's gay, and the BLP complaints have been focused on the two-inch-deep layer of categories at the end of the talk page, not about the banner. So unless you're willing to rename all of the cats to something like "[[:Category:WikiProject LGBT studies articles with comments—Notice that the presence of this category on the talk page does not mean the subject of this article is necessarily gay, assuming the subject of this article is a man, which usually these articles aren't even about people in the first place, but some people said we needed to have a disclaimer]]", I don't think it will actually help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't interest academics. People like being called erroneous things that are positive, such as tall or thin but they don't like being called negative things. In this case, being called a G, L, B, or T is usually regarded as negative. This LGBT template is attached to somebody who obviously has a problem with that sort of thing and so it should be removed, or at the very least a disclaimer added. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
We have two separate subjects here:
One
I say: There is already a disclaimer on the banner for this article.
You say: We should add a disclaimer to the banner.
I ask: Just how many disclaimers do you need?
Two
The fact that you believe being called gay is a negative thing is a major area of academic study. Right now, the queer studies folks name Tom Cruise's lawsuits as their popular example. If Wikipedia decides to add a blanket disclaimer to every article that the LGBT studies group supports, then Wikipedia may well become their next popular example of this phenomenon. Can you imagine those headlines? "WikiProject Psychiatry can tag any article they want without a disclaimer saying that the person isn't necessarily psychotic, and WikiProject Crime doesn't need a disclaimer that the person isn't necessarily a criminal, but every article tagged by WikiProject LGBT studies needs a statement that the person isn't necessarily gay". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The disclaimer just needs to say that it doesn't imply anything about the subject's sexuality. What I believe is irrelevant in this discussion. I don't think it is a major area of academic study. It's not like it's a mystery why people don't like being called gay. The fact is that most people regard being called gay as negative. Cruise is clearly one of those people so therefore a disclaimer or the removal of the template altogether is probably required. The disclaimer need only be applied to people like Tom Cruise because the subject is not LGBT or alternatively when it is unknown but speculated. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I think perhaps this conversation would go better if everybody avoided the original research required to declare the addition of the template says something other than it does. If we stick to the verifiable facts of the words actually used in the relevant templates and categories, it will probably allow us to come to the correct conclusion. Acoma Magic, perhaps you could start us off by quoting exactly which words you find objectionable and why? Hiding T 09:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The template should be removed or a disclaimer added, saying it doesn't imply anything about his sexuality. Acoma Magic (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you indicate with a yes or no answer that you have read the complete text of the template. Hiding T 13:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Yes. Acoma Magic (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why you insist a disclaimer is needed for the LGBT tag but not the Louisville tag. Some people might find it offensive to have a tag, which in your opinion, implies that they're from Louisville. Please note that the LGBT tag is already different from other tags: it states that xxx subject is "of interest" to their project. The other tags state that xxx subject is "within the scope" of those projects. That should serve sufficient to anyone who actually reads the talk pages and the tags. Jonathanfu (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
If the Louisville tag is applied to somebody who is rumoured to be from Louisville but that persons has a problem with that association, then a similar disclaimer to the one proposed should be applied. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Please note that prior consensus has been that a WikiProject tag identified that an article was within the interest of a group of editors rather than categorizing the article as belonging to a topic field. If you disagree with said consensus, go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council as advised. Jonathanfu (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It was a divided consensus (assuming you can call it a consensus) and the word 'unhelpful' isn't very strong language against removal of project templates. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't seem particularly divided to me, and I'd call it consensus as the summary does. If you have issues with the wording of the consensus summary, take it up with the WikiProject Council. Jonathanfu (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't have any issues with it. It doesn't prevent us from removing templates because that is only seen as "unhelpful". Acoma Magic (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I guess. But given the fairly explicit language of the summary that dismisses any BLP concerns attached to Project tags, there's no supporting rationale for the removal of the template. It'd just be an 'unhelpful' act for no good reason. Jonathanfu (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
"Legitimate concerns were raised about potential association discomfort for people connected with the subject of a BLP article". It doesn't dismiss the BLP concerns at all. Acoma Magic (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure it does, when you read the preceding sentence "a WikiProject tag identified that an article was within the interest of a group of editors rather than categorizing the article as belonging to a topic field". As it has been noted extensively above, this means that a tag adds no material whatsoever, rather, is equivalent to a list of editors posting on a tagged talk page "I am interested in this subject". There can be no violation of BLP if there is no addition of content. Jonathanfu (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Saying it doesn't make it so. Acoma Magic (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Excellent argument, you should have thought of it earlier before complaining that the LGBT WikiProject tag infringes on WP:BLP. Jonathanfu (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
It was referring to your claim that it adds no material whatsoever, which requires a very broad interpretation of "a WikiProject tag identified that an article was within the interest of a group of editors rather than categorizing the article as belonging to a topic field". Acoma Magic (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. What content would you say a WikiProject tag adds then? Because I would think that a bunch of people who are all interested in something saying that they are merely interested in something else wouldn't add any content. Keep in mind that the LGBT tag doesn't even read "this topic is within the scope of xyz", but "this topic is of interest to xyz". Jonathanfu (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Acoma, I think you're right: saying it doesn't make it so. Saying that "legitimate concerns were raised" about a possible BLP violation doesn't mean that there is a BLP violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Prior consensus

Just wanted to point out the consensus established in 2010 is for the tag to stay: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. Hiding T 08:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vanity Fair

I was a little surprised to see that there wasn't any mention in the article of the Vanity Fair story that is currently all over the news outlets [13]. I've added a brief and, hopefully, neutrally worded mention of it here. Let me know what you think... Prioryman (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that should be acceptable; it's relatively well-sourced and neutrally worded. It's worth noting that it's already included in the Nazanin Boniadi article as well. Robofish (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I have yet to read the article but if it's reliably sourced, it should be included. --MrIndustry (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Scientology start date

The "Scientology" section says "He became involved with Scientology in 1990 through his first wife, Mimi Rogers[14]" This is supported by the source cited.

There are a couple of problems with this.

  1. Cruise's marriage with and Mimi Rogers ran from May 9, 1987 to February 4, 1990. It seems unlikely Cruise became "involved" with Scientology, Mimi's religion, right as the marriage was spinning downhill.
  2. The book "Tom Cruise" by Phelan Powell says "By 1989 Tom had completed his first basic courses in Scientology" (pg. 85). This book has a list of sources in the back but it would take a while to go through them to see which were the source for the 1989 claim.
  3. This news article and also this one say that Cruise joined the church in 1986. I'm skeptical of the reliability of the joined in 1986 claim as the source is Karen Pressley who at the time was a Scientology executive and she's commenting on something that happened years prior to her statement. In defense of 1986 is that Mimi's father ran a Scientology mission and it's possible Cruise visited it and may well have bought a book. There's a possibility he would have agreed to the Scientology Marriage Course prior to tying the knot with Mimi. Thus while I would not be surprised if Cruise got involved in 1986 I'd want to see it from a more reliable source than Karen Pressley.

Mimi Rogers grew up in a Scientology family and was dating Cruise as early as 17 October 1986.[15] That date is the release date for The Color of Money and Mimi Rogers was Cruise's date at the premier.[16]

This January 21, 1988 article reports that Mimi was involved with Scientology at the time and married to Cruise but does not mention if Cruise was involved.

By 1991 it's confirmed that Cruise is involved. May 6, 1991 Time Magazine and many others.

It seems reliable for the article to say that Cruise was dating a Scientologist in 1986, married her in May 1987, and had completed basic courses by 1989. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Scientologists are editing these pages. They have been ordered by the Guardian Office. Their nature is to suppress information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.71.35 (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Mixup in Relationships and personal life

The "Relationships and personal life" section says:

  • Of Nicole Kidman: "The couple married on December 24, 1990"
  • "In February 2001 Cruise filed for divorce from Kidman three days before the couple’s 10th wedding anniversary"

I don't have time to sort out which part of this is in error. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify myself, I edited the content which I considred to be offensive towards Tom Cruise after the Scientology argument in 2005. He has the right to speak out his mind just like all of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isismarwan (talk • contribs) 14:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2012

Actually Tom Cruise wanted to become a research scientist before becoming an actor. Harryaidb (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Given the type of article I'm also going to suggest you have a look at Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Intro claims Cruise has share of UA, something the UA article disputes

According to http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/mgm-takes-a-loss-on-dragon-tattoo-and-seeks-better-terms-for-sequels/, MGM "disclosed that it acquired 100% of United Artists late last year"; an editor has cited that ref in United Artists as evidence that Cruise had sold his share of UA. 64.126.86.214 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the UA statement. It was cited to a 2007 source. Thanks for the info. Cresix (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Spelling of parent's names

There's a set of photos between page 88 and 89 of Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography. Page 9 of the photos is a copy of the certificate of divorce Tom Cruise's biological parents. It identifies his father as "Thomas Cruse Mapother, III" born 10/15/1934 in Kentucky. Tom's mother's maiden name is stated as "Mary Lee Pfieffer" born 9/22/1936 in Kentucky.

A Google search for "Thomas Cruse Mapother" does not turn up much though one anonymous blog comment claims "They always get that middle name wrong. It's Thomas Cruse Mapother IV. Or at least, that's how it was spelled on the nameplate beneath the portrait of his namesake great-grandaddy at the family law firm."[17]

ancestry.com is ambiguous as it used just "C" rather than "Cruse" or "Cruise" for most of its results.[18] There is a gravestone but it appears to be a modern stone and is using "Thomas Cruise Mapother."[19]

A Google search for "Mary Lee Pfieffer" turns up next to nothing. ancestry.com says the 1940 United States Federal Census has a "Mary Lee Pfeiffer" age 3 in Louisville, Jefferson county, Kentucky.[20] [21] I don't have an account on that web site and so can't inspect the raw U.S. Census forms nor do I have time to go through the public copies available on the census web site to verify the spelling. There's also a yearbook picture available for a "Mary Lee Pfeiffer" though we'd need to look and see if it's the same person and to verify how the name is spelled in the yearbook.

While the certificate of divorce itself likely qualifies as a reliable source it's a puzzle that the spelling of both parent's names is different than the generally promoted names. It's likely the data came from Mary Lee as she's the plaintiff. One other comment about this is that the certificate of divorce shown in the book is a modern copy created by the state on March 15, 2006. It reports the source data is Order Book volume 167, page 300. Someone would need to examine the original paperwork to see if someone made a mistake at some point or if the names are "Thomas Cruse Mapother, III" and "Mary Lee Pfieffer."

The marriage ran from 12/28/1957 to 8/1/1975. It lists that there were four children though does not state their names or gender.

Ideally, the U.S. Census pages are found as they would show how the Mapother and Pfeiffer/Pfieffer families spelled their names each decade. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ [www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Review/article403573.ece "Mr Shouty and and Cruise: The Rematch"]. Sunday Times series. September 26, 2010. Retrieved 2010-09-25. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outsiders_(film)
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risky_Business
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Cruise/Archive_2&oldid=1140753046"