Talk:Tom Cruise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tom Cruise article.
Tom Cruise is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: 5 November 2006
Wikipedia CD Selection Tom Cruise is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Louisville, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Louisville on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Trapped in the Closet reaired July 19, 2006

Hey it was on last week and the episode is now up for an Emmy. "I'm not in the closet" - Tom Cruise

Gwag 12:33 July 27, 2006 (EST)

Interesting that he cares so much. Black Kat 23:29 August 22, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child Born?

Lets have it documented right here, right now, first on Wikipedia before any news agency... Breaking news that Tom and Katie are having their baby right now as I type this, in a hospital in Toledo. (according to people I know at the hospital) Grandeandy 20:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You should send this earth-shattering information to the National Enquirer at once! Why allow them to scoop you? And besides, how are you sure it's actually "the" Katie Holmes giving birth? Did you see anyone carrying in signs to the hospital, saying "QUIET ON THE SET" or anything like that? -- Jalabi99 09:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...it's A PILLOW!!! :)

[edit] Sequencing

This needs editing for continuity: There's a reference to someone called "Holmes" and several paragraphs later an explanation and link. Some of the Scientology material is repeated. Perhaps it could begin with a chronological biography from birth to the present day.- Hugh7 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Elemental, dear Watson.

[edit] Sex appeal drop?

"The drop follows Cruise’s controversial publicity tour for the release of “War Of The Worlds” and his engagement to actress Katie Holmes."

This sentence appears to be a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc as it insinuates the subjects listed are the cause of his decline in popularity. It's easy to believe that this is true, but you can't claim that Scientology/Holmes/etc. is the cause of his decline simply because it occured after those events. Not without citation to proof, anyway. Thoughts? --ndc 05:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It said the drop followed, not was caused by.
I have reworded this Glen Stollery (My contributions) 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality

Tom Cruise is trapped in the closet, so he is totally gay. Sissy Is this an encyclopedia or People magazine? If you went back through the man's decades long career and archived every tabloid situation he was in, you would cost wikipedia hundreds of dollars in hard-drive space. --Aufidius 4 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to mention the rumors regarding his sexuality? Not to make a judgement, of course, but to acknowledge their persistence? --Feitclub 04:50, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Right, I'm bloody removing it. I just looked at this page while watching Vanilla Sky, and that first statement made me sick. 203.122.228.168 12:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"As a sex symbol, Cruise's physique has been subject to close scrutiny of the media. While many fans contend that his smile is one of his most notable features, one of his upper front incisors is off-color, and he started wearing braces in 2002. (He removes them during filming.)"

  • I don't know if this was put in as a joke or not, but for a general article of this length, it's just bizarre and irrelevent trivia. So I've removed it. Palefire 15:30, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Seems to have gone back in the article - this time I've let the bit about the braces stay (excusable now that it's in a triva section), but the "off-colour front incisor" is just stupid. There's no excuse for that in an encyclopedia article - next we'll be talking about the rate of growth of his armpit hair. Palefire 17:51, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's become more and more common for celebrities to have their incisors elongated with a ceramic composite that covers the entire tooth. It's supposed to give the person a more dominant look, and it's possible that Criuse had this done, and the color wasn't matched exactly right. Why do Cruise's incisors look normal before he did "Legend"? 29 Jan 2006

Why doesn't he just come out of the closet? Dr. Cash 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been a constant point of discussion since his first wife made allegations in a Playboy interview that he never had sex with her. There have also been individuals (male) who have come forward to say that he has had sex with them. It isn't some rumor that just appeared recently out of nowhere... Vaginsh 04:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody with a brain seriously thinks Cruise is straight.
I know Tom's lawyers have stated he is not homosexual, but has Tom ever publicly denied being gay or bisexual?

[edit] Assertion that rings false

"Although a licensed private pilot, standing at only 5′ 7″ (170 cm) Cruise is actually too short to have been a U.S. Navy pilot he portrayed in his breakout movie Top Gun. The Navy requires its pilots be at least 5′ 8″."

This assertion sounds like it's probably false. The navy requires its pilots to be a certain minimum height? Why? I'd like to see a cite for that. It might make sense for them to have a certain maximum height or weight, which I think they do. But minimum height doesn't make sense beyond being able to reach floor pedals, which I'm sure a 5'7" person could do. From this page, we find somebody apparently pasting a Navy requirements manual. The height strictures are 58 inches to 78 inches, with variations in rules for sitting heights and for different particular aircraft. It's possible that the particular jet Cruise's character flew had a specific minimum height requirement of 5'8", but that doesn't seem particularly likely since the heights between 64" and 78" are "most likely anthropometrically compatible" with most planes. (Cruise's 5'7" is 67 inches, well above the minimum of 58 inches and also within the range of likely compatibility for most planes.) If this assertion is going to be in the article, it's going to need a cite. It sounds like an ill-researched factoid. Mr. Billion 08:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

It is 5'8".
http://www.afrotc.com/admissions/physicalReq.php
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step07_hw_usaf,,00.html
However, in some instances (as far as I am aware) the absolute min. standing height is 64 inches, and a particular sitting height. I belive that as long as his character met all other requirements, he would have been accepted.
Those sources provided are for the Air Force...not the navy. Smart Guy.


Regardless of the links provided, you're clearly interpreting "58 (inches)" as "5'8" (5 feet, 8 inches)." The height requirement does not differentiate between sex, so a male of 58 inches (or 4 feet, 10 inches) could join with the Air Force. User:Tristam 10:35 p.m., 12 March 2006 (GMT - 8:00)

This link shows the basic requirements for Navy pilots.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/officerjo2/a/pilot.htm
The minimum height for men is 62" (5'2") and the maximum is 78" (6'6"). This agrees with what I was told when I visited the Naval Academy. Djcastel 16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scientology

there is much criticism of him due to his membership in scientology. i think this should be mentioned in the article.

I think this criticism belongs in the Scientology article. But there were two long paragraphs about how Cruise loves Scientology and how wonderful he thinks it is. This strikes me as exceedingly POV and doesn't belong in the article. I have cut it to a basic NPOV paragraph. Shoaler 16:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cruise is arguably Hollywood's most prominent Scientologist. Far from being a peripheral (or private) aspect of his life, he has been quite outspoken in his beliefs — and he has even criticized non-Scientologist celebrities (like Brooke Shields) for not following church doctrine. This certainly belongs in the entry. Sandover 16:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree. But the former text sounded like an ad for the CoS. Why don't you add something along the line that you're suggesting? Shoaler 17:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Done. Sandover 18:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Law suit

So far as I know the phrase "defaulted on the law suit" has no legal meaning. What happened? And it isn't clear who was suing whom.

"Defaulted on the law suit" most certainly has legal meaning, albeit somewhat awkwardly phrased. The person is referencing a default judgment, which occurs when one party fails to respond to a summons or appear or present pleadings. That is exactly what occured in the case in question. The defendant -- whom Cruise sued for defamation -- failed to appear and the court entered judgment for Cruise. 66.81.246.233 05:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oprah section

The Oprah appearance seems to be too prominently featured already, and the suggestion to the effect that he won't be considered for major roles because of is risible. I may underestimate the importance of the appearance, but I can't believe it rates more highly than a marriage and divorce, previous film roles, etc. --Mister Tattle 02:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It reads too much like gossip in that section. It's going to be irrelevant a few months down the road. --Madchester June 28, 2005 21:19 (UTC)

I disagree. The Oprah interview sparked off the current ridicule Tom is experiencing in the media. Leaving that out would be like writing an article on Michael Jackson and omitting information on the whole Martin Bashir interview. Cruise's outspoken beliefs and mainstream society's suspicion of his beliefs are a major part of his public image and persona.

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

[edit] pov moved from article

This was in the article, but it's horribly biased. If the incident is worth having in the article, could someone NPOV? Thanks. --W(t) 23:49, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

On June 24, 2005, Tom Cruise lashed out at Matt Lauer on the Today Show spurting accusations that Lauer was "glib" when addressing antidepressants and Ritalin. Cruise declared himself an expert on the subject and sidestepped Lauer's questions about Scientology by saying that Lauer was not qualified to talk about such matters, because he had not read the research papers that Cruise claimed to have read. It is worth noting that Cruise himself has only a high school education, with no medical training. His ability to evaluate research papers is questionable at best.

I've NPOV'ed it. Is it OK? Deus Ex 00:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bateman

Does Tom Cruise actually live in the same building as Patrick Bateman?

Added some more information regarding the homosexuality rumors. I am new at this Wikipedia and am still learning... so I'm not sure my contribution is quite up to par with standards but I did my best. Someone might want to go in and clean it up a bit though. --kms

[edit] Assault

Anyone else hear about those people who squirted him with water? When I think of assault I think of wailing on someone with a plank, not squirting an actor in possession tens of millions of dollars with water. What are we coming to where its the same thing to squirt someone with water as knock someone out? Redwolf24 3 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)

Assault in American civil law includes any unpermitted contact. It need not inflict serious injury nor be violent. Hitting someone with a cream pie or pinching someone's fanny would be sufficient. There's also a civil tort known as "offensive touching," which could include poking or stroking someone without their permission. This is an old concept in common law and has nothing to do with the person's celebrity status. Patting a waitress on her fanny -- e.g. "copping a feel" -- could subject one to civil damages. The amount of monetary damages would be less than a more serious assault, e.g. "wailing someone with a plank" (love that term). 66.81.246.233 05:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I found this flash at Newgrounds. Tom Cruise Gets Wet

Knocking someone out would be assault and battery. Assault by itself doesn't require contact. Just shaking your fist threateningly in a certain situation would be enough. HTH --Madison 09:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't get away with calling it assault in England, lol, this should be in the article though. It was a big TC moment Bowen 20:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Scientology Section

This section is a mess. It's just a collection of mostly unrelated sentences. I know this has been a battleground between the pro- and anti-Scientology people, but can't we get a decent section here? Tom Cruise is a member of the Church of Scientology, probably fairly high up. So it's important to him and he talks about it a lot. All the other stuff, which is just thinly veiled promotion or criticism of Scientology should be taken out. I don't think this section is worth more than one paragraph. --Shoaler 14:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've summarised it into two small paragraphs. Thoughts? Deus Ex 21:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Cruise Is Nuts

I've noticed that several different people have been reverting edits to add a link to [1], supposedly because it's "inflammatory". I don't see how the website is itself inflammatory. Some may find the URL somewhat questionable, but the website itself is just a list of tabloid occurances, all of them, so far as I can tell, true. If we're going to include "Tom Cruise takes a stand in Europe", "Tom Cruise Overcame Learning Disability", and "TomCruiseFan.com", there's no reason not to include this, if only for another POV. James 22:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The page is only satire anyway, it is not libelous and not hateful of Tom Cruise. I don't think it should be removed just because one user thinks it is ""inflammatory". Deus Ex 22:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I have been one of the editors reverting this contribution because I felt it was both superfluous and borderline inflammatory. If the general consensus is to keep this link, I will leave it be. Hall Monitor 23:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think "Tom Cruise is Nuts" is libel and inflammatory, even if the .com material isn't. That's why I reverted it. --Kbdank71 15:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There isn't anything that contributes to NPOV by inserting libellous domain names into an article, but I really don't have the time or energy to enter a revert war over this nonsense. Hall Monitor 16:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it rises to the level of libel, because Tom Cruise is a public figure, the site is taking issue with him on matters of public importance, and the epithet of "nuts" is arguably substantiated by the documented quotes in the site. "Nuts" doesn't necessarily mean mentally ill in a medical sense, but can mean simply holding extremely irrational beliefs not shared by the rest of the populace. The site has well documented that. It also is defensible as parody or humor. The Alexa rating of around 40,000 is pretty high for such a site, so it's obviously getting some traffic. I say the link should go in, provided it is properly identified for what it is. Postdlf 20:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, there's nothing to suggest that the operators of the site are in any way able to determine the mental state of Tom Cruise, so there's no reasonable expectation that people would believe their assertion that he is, thus removing any possibility that it would affect his personal reputation, a requirement for libel. James 22:29, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, the site is clearly satirical, which courts generally have found to be protected nonlibelous speech, particularly when dealing with a public figure who has manifested certain behavior which is the very subject of the satire. 66.81.246.233 05:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's another one to argue over: http://www.scienTomogy.info/. The domain name isn't necessarily libelous, and it has quite a few video clips. But maybe it's resigned to the same fate. --Interiot 22:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought Tom Cruise was crazy, but when I found out that he dropped out of High School, that's the reason he believes in Scientology, he's just stupid. Yancyfry jr

TomCruiseIsNuts.com is a bashing website containing tabloid and fabricated news. Not to mention the speculation that has no bases of truth. I don't know why http://www.tomcruisefan.com was removed. It's a website made by a fan, it contains real information and news, community for fans, among other things. I'd like to have it again on the External Links. (Grasiani2 17:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Tom Cruise's past lives

Anyone got a reliable news source on Tom Cruise claiming to have been Shakespeare, Bach, Napoleon and more in various past lives? It sounds a tad dubious(with any other celebrity, it would be obvious satire), but I certainly wouldn't put it past him

Seems to originate from a fake interview: http://www.cinematical.com/2005/08/28/correction-tom-cruise-not-shakespeare/ "Toronto newspaper publishing a fake interview with Tom Cruise that started all the trouble. In the interview, Mr. Totally Sane Guy announced that he was Shakespeare in a previous life. Back in those glorious times when women suffered postpartum depression alone and without treatment, Fake Tom reported that he was much happier than he is today. Not only did he write plays and sonnets and whatnot, but he also did some thing that have so far not been reported as typical Shakespearean activities - you know, things like "conquer[ing] nations, discover[ing] continents, and develop[ing] cures for diseases."

Although a Scottish tabloid, The Daily Record, has a different take on Cruise's past lives:

"I really would have preferred being a brain surgeon or a research scientist in this life." Cruise, 43, told how he has known and loved his latest fiancee, Dawson's Creek star Katie Holmes, "many times in many lives before". He said: "When I was languishing in prison before being sent to exile, she used to send me notes hidden in the collar of her pug dog. She's my eternal soulmate."

Cruise said the "sheer joy" of finding Katie again in his current life was something non-Scientologists could never understand. He added: "I know the history of this woman. Other people don't. "Until you've been with a partner in countless past lives, you'll never know the joy of rediscovering that partner in your present life. It's a joy I wish for all of you."

It's possible that the Daily Record's interview is real, since past lives is definitely something that Scientologists believe in. But the quotes aren't very convincing and some sound like a parody of the Matt Lauer interview.

[edit] fiance??

honestly you people are as bad as the folks at TV Guide.

because Katie Holmes is feminine it's fiancee not fiance (male version)....

I suggest that someone changes this.

I don't see any instance in this article of "fiance". Also, this is a wiki. That means that if you find an error, you can change it just as easily as anyone else. So if you find an error, go ahead and correct it. Dismas|(talk) 09:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one who can speak (or write) French hasn't carpeted all of you guys. The words are actually "fiancé" (male) and "fiancée" (female). Zut alors! -- Jalabi99 09:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical Imbalance

The statement "This runs counter to the what is believed by most of the medical profession" referring to the belief that there's no such thing as a chemical imbalance would appear to require a reference. -Jose

Yeah, there's no chemical imbalance, and people do not, I repeat, do not get drunk when they drink ten bottles of beer.
The question is, without ingesting substances that clearly affect brain chemistry, does brain chemistry become 'imbalanced' -- is that the right word for it even? How does your brain get 'balanced' again the next day? Clearly, neurochemical differences have been demonstrated to be associated with certain disorders, but who's to say those differences are pathological in nature. You don't expect everyone's brains and behavior to be identical? Furthermore, many so-called disorders have been shown to originate in generic differences which produce different brain structure, so it's not just about chemicals, and certainly 'imbalanced' seems insufficient and inappropriate to describe such differences. There's a known gene variation that's associated with 50% of ADHD cases, for example, which clearly produces neurological differences. Since as many as 5% of the population might have that gene variation, it must provide some advantages in order to still exist. I think it would be wrong to argue that any gene variation indicates pathology (everyone has gene variations) and the fact that consuming certain drugs appears to help with symptoms doesn't prove an 'imbalance' at all. -Jose
From the Dopamine Article: "Disruption to the dopamine system has also been strongly linked to psychosis and schizophrenia. Dopamine neurons in the mesolimbic pathway are particularly associated with these conditions. This is partly due to the discovery of a class of drugs called the phenothiazines (which block D2 dopamine receptors) that can reduce psychotic symptoms, and partly due to the finding that drugs such as amphetamine and cocaine (which are known to greatly increase dopamine levels) can cause psychosis. Because of this, most modern antipsychotic medication is designed to block dopamine function to varying degrees. Blocking the D2 dopamine receptor is known to cause relapse in patients that have achieved remission from depression, and such blocking also counteracts the effectiveness of SSRI medication."
From the Seratonin Article: "Serotonin is believed to play an important part of the biochemistry of depression, migraine, bipolar disorder and anxiety. It is also believed to be influential on sexuality and appetite."
From the Dopamine receptor article: "In schizophrenics, D2 receptors have been found to exist in higher than normal levels." My issue is with the term 'chemical imbalance', and the fact that it appears to be an ad-hoc and non-scientific. (Which scientific paper introduced the term?) The term implies that mental illness is much like consuming alchohol; some neurotransmitter is a bit out of wack, you just take some drugs to regain 'balance', and everything is fine. It fails to account for the fact that there are many different kinds of brain issues. In some brain diseases there's neuron death and deterioration (e.g. Alzheimer's) and you can try all you want to 'balance' brain chemistry without success. In disorders such as ADHD and autism, it appears that you're basically born with different brain 'wiring' due to genetics, and you just have a different kind of brain all of your life, a difference which does not affect your life expectancy at all. Yet because of all the 'chemical imbalance' hoopla it's considered OK to drug ADHD/HFA kids with Ritalin. Now, in disorders such as anxiety, it's quite possible a neurochemical change is involved (though there's some evidence anxiety is genetic as well) and yet somehow a good cognitivie-behavioral program can be very effective in treating anxiety. So 'chemical imbalance' apparently can be produced by thinking and removed by thinking too, which is not at all the intention of usage of the term, which generally implies that you need to restore 'balance' by consuming drugs. -Jose
You're absolutely right that "chemical imbalance" is a non-scientific term, and that's why you only hear people like scientologists using it. They use it precisely because it implies that mental illness is caused by "some neurotransmitters out of wack", and makes it seem less plausable to ordinary people. But it's clear what they imply by slamming the term "chemical imbalance": that the idea that levels of certain chemicals in the brain can cause mental disorders and that drugs can be used to fix those levels is untrue. In other words, they hold their view on "chemical imbalance" in support of their view that mental disorders can't be solved with drugs, which is, frankly, demonstably false. Is America overmedicated with these drugs? Quite possibly. But Scientologists argue that they cannot help in any circumstances, which I guess is what you get when you ask a cult for medical advice. TastyCakes 16:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Right, I'm not looking at it from a religious point of view -- I'm completely irreligeous. But by mentioning 'chemical imbalance' Tom Cruise does bring up some questions about something that seems to be taken for granted. (Googling the term brings up even more questions). Obviously drugs can change behavior, but are they really curing an 'imbalance' or simply masking symptoms and perhaps compensating for physiological deficits or unhealthy thinking patterns? And clearly in a way that can only be temporary, not that they aren't at all helpful to anyone. -Jose
Noone is arguing that chemicals are the only cause of mental disorders. But very few (and even fewer that have any credibility) argue they don't play any role. TastyCakes 20:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you consider all of the more serious mental issues, neurochemical problems would seem to be really secondary to physiological ones. If there is mental illness that is only caused by neurochemical imbalances (let's say anxiety is one) it would appear that the chemical imbalance is basically a manifestation of a mental state which can be controlled by thinking, based on the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy and programs. It's unclear to me why taking drugs for the rest of your life is considered preferable in such cases. -Jose
According to who? You or some Scientologist somewhere or who? Doctor's use drugs to deal with mental problems of various levels of severity all the time. That's the fact of the matter and that spells out their views on Scientologists "Chemical Imbalance" talk pretty clearly I think. If you think you can think yourself out of post partum depression or ADHD or autism, or psychosis for that matter, good for you. But I think it's pretty obvious why so many people choose to take drugs "for the rest of their life" rather than make that leap of faith. TastyCakes 17:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I know first hand that it is possible to rid oneself of problems such as anxiety and panic thru cognitive-behavioral changes alone. I also know first hand that it is not possible (nor desirable) to elminitate other supposed disorders, such as Asperger's syndrome. You misunderstood my argument if you thought I said that you can get rid of autism or psychosis by changing your thinking. There are different kinds of mental conditions. The fact that drugs are able to mask symptoms is not proof that they have restored balance to neurochemicals. -Jose
For now I've made links to the Dopamine and Seratonin wikipedia pages, which describe mental disorders associated with them. TastyCakes 23:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

My college prof at Berkeley said that if you look at the scientific literature, there is nothing that says that a serotonin imbalance causes depression. He said that breaking out of depression is more about rewiring the brain. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that binds to G-coupled receptors, and that binding causes activation and inactivation of various genes, which is how the "rewiring" takes place. Breaking out of depression is like breaking out of a bad habit. What antidepressants do is very effective, but is not directly "fixing" depression. The drugs work in the same way that cocaine does. They inhibit presynaptic uptake of neurotransmitters. SSRI's such as Prozac inhibit presynaptic uptake of serotonin. So by inhibiting the reuptake, the neurotransmitters don't backtrack. They instead stay in the synapse and move forward up to the post-synaptic cell. So they have a greater effect on the body. Since serotonin is associated with the parasympathetic nervous system, more serotonin = more relaxation. So the drugs aren't really stopping depression, they're just countering the depression with comfort, as cocaine would do. IMO, depression is a condition that the individual has control over. With enough willpower, you can fight it off, because it's your brain and ultimately you have the ability to control yourself. There are tons of studies that correlate some physical illnesses with emotional problems. Sort out the emotional problems out and the illnesses go away, or become less severe. Cruise is very screwed up in his opinion of psychiatry (and almost everything else), but I agree that kids in particular are overdiagnosed. You don't see every other animal in the wild getting depressed, it's a very rare occurrence and always seems to be as a result of an environmental factor. In animal tests on antidepressants, they actually depress rats by using sleep deprivation and constantly giving them electrical shocks. I don't think humans are any different...more often than not it's just caused by external factors. Statistically, I believe 17% of people are diagnosed with depression at some point in their lifetimes. I don't see why 17% of people's brains would go haywire for no particular reason, and make them depressed. But I can see how 17% of people would have so many things wrong in their lives that they would become depressed and have no will to fight out of it. 70.231.232.70 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious problem with objectivity, facts in Scientology section

"A person would wonder how the Church of Scientology feels about Tom Cruise commiting adultery and producing a bastard son. I guess Scientology is not Christian based."

I think this sentence should be deleted in full -- "committing adultery" is highly arguable, "bastard son" is untrue (I don't think Tom Cruise produced a child out of wedlock), and "I guess Scientology is not Christian based" is an assertion that has no place in a wikipedia.

In some parts of Christianity anything outside of marriage is adultery. "Bastard son" would refer to the conception of his biological child outside of wedlock. Tom was raised Catholic and apparently is still alowed to practice it along with scientology.
"Allowed" to practice both Scientology and Catholicism? Allowed by whom? Something tells me that the Catholic Church would not take to kindly to an adherent of the Catholic faith practicing something that they would consider to be at best non-Christian and at worst idolatrous. You know, the whole "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me" routine. -- Jalabi99 09:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chemical imbalances and objectivity--

RE: Objectivity. I think science and it's subspecialties such as medicine, math, and technology are far more "objective" than Tom's zealous rants against neurology. Moreover, I think humankind does better with information based on evidence as opposed to information spouted from an uneducated "true believer" of any faith or anyone who claims that the answers to their problems lie in the supernatural realm.

Science and technology have built civilization--humans triumph because we change the environment to fit us instead of merely adapting through the slow evolutionary process. For example, other animals seek shelter from the heat. Humans invented air conditioners. Although the term "chemical imbalance" is a layman's way of saying that "what's going on in your brain determines how well you function and what sort of feelings you have." By the way, someone wrote of "generic" differences, when they meant genetic differences. But genes code for proteins--which are chemicalsThese chemical reactions might have helped our ancestors survive and reproduce, but they can be debilitating in today's world. The super obese are an example. One might have inherited a gene which causes a "chemical imbalance" that results in an insatiable hunger (not unlike my dog mind you), but in a world with plenty of food, that might not bode well (and I suspect my dog might eat himself to death too if I left the fridge door open.) Our ancestors got their vitamin D from the sun--but we invented lights, and often spend many days without sun--so we supplement with the "chemical" vitamin D.

Tom cruise errs in making an assumption that "natural methods" like the scientology practice of "clearing" (using a lie detector type device)is superior to chemicals--and that all "drugs" are bad. But drugs are just chemicals--and chemical reactions are responsible for all life. I don't think clearing will do much for exhaustion caused by insulin dependent diabetes--nor a woman who can't conceive because her body doesn't make enough progesterone to sustain a pregnancy. Sufferers who inject themselves with synthetic chemicals fair much better than those who might attempt more natural methods. My husband was into healthy eating, didn't smoke...wouldn't even take an aspirin. He died at age 28 from colon cancer. Aspirin turnes out to signigicantly decrease ones risk of getting colon cancer. Go figure.

Tom cruise needs to learn about something called a "double blind study" to understand how we know what works in medicine and that which is a placebo. Tom cruise doesn't believe in chemical imbalances, but he does believe that that people need to be cleared of the invisible energy demons in their body by chemical clearing and scientology (more like sci-fi-entology.) Believing something doesn't make it true. That's why science demands data and testing and replication of results. In fact anyone can look up James Randi on the web and recieve a million dollars if they can do whatever supernatural claim they say they can do--and prove it with a jointly agreed upon scientific test.

Those who have a good life naturally attribute it to their religion, God, lucky socks, etc. (How many winning football players thank Jesus afterwards? Would a Supreme Being care who won the Superbowl?) But correlation is not causation--which Mr. Cruise would understand if he was studying science as opposed to "scientology".--Is it any wonder that Americans continue to perform so poorly (ranking 22 and 23) in both science and math among developed nations. We once were number one on the scientific front.

[edit] Citations requested

I've been asked to go through this article and verify its contents. I've added hidden comments (viewable in the Edit box), where citations should be included. Overall, the article looks good, with no glaringly obvious problems. We just need to verify the facts. The best way to do this is to first pick a few thorough references on Cruise, cite those whenever possible, directly in the article, and list them under the References section. Once that is done, then the citations can be all fancied up with {{ref label}} and {{note label}}. I and others would really appreciate anybody willing to help out on this. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 21:03

[edit] Gay accusations

article was unthinkingly in the "not gay" camp, not even addressing the rumours and accusations etc. the section is about *rumours* hence source by defn are non-verifiable. and are you claiming south park did *not* make an episode about tc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs).

The South Park episode is already addressed in the "Church of Scientology" section. And unfounded rumors with no reliable sources behind them have no place in a Wikipedia article. And no, a link to some blog is not a "reliable source." --MisterHand 13:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


It is not really an accusation as such...More of an allegation as there is nothing wrong with being gay. 86.142.200.182 04:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New to wikipedia

I'm new to Wikipedia and have not been brave enough to edit any articles but this one sure is bad. It reads like a two week old Enquirer magazine with all the rumors and allegations.JohnM4402 17:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] actor, producer, and scientologist?

I think the inclusion of "scientologist" is inappropriate in the lede for cruise. Are other personalities notable for their professions typically given their religions in the opening sentence, even if it is a significant part of them? Are other hollywood personalities connected with CoS labeled as such in the opening sentence of their pages? I am no fan of the CoS, but this definitely has POV connotations, in that it implies scientology is as much a part of what makes tom cruise worth mentioning as the other two. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.229.197.252 (talk • contribs).

See Jumping the couch. I think Scientology is a very notable aspect of Tom Cruise and should be in the lead sentence. --Cyde Weys votetalk 07:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"See Jumping the couch." Why?

The Cliff Richard article doesn't say "popular singer and Christian", and the Madonna article doesn't say "famous singer and Kabbalist", though, of course, the religious beliefs of both are subsequently discussed in detail. A space can be found for these beliefs in some introductory paragraphs (Cliff Richard, Richard Dawkins, Graham Greene), but squeezing Scientology into the opening sentence is at best misleading and at worst POV given that this isn't done for other prominent Scientologists (Kelly Preston, John Travolta, Mimi Rogers, Jerry Seinfeld &c.).

chocolateboy 21:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumours and Gossip

Is it possible to move all the rumours into their own category? The article reads like a pastiche of an encyclopedia and a supermarket tabloid. I came to the article looking for biographical information. I enjoy reading the rumours, but not in every paragraph. In Rudolph Valentino all the and rumours and gossip were moved into a single category at the end of the main article. Previously it was interspersed throughout, and made it difficult to read. The paragraph about Cruise being brainwashed by scientology may be referenced properly but it isn't encylopedic, and should be put in a category of: Rumour or Gossip. The information provided by FACTnet is from secondary and tertiary sources and is gossipy and conspiracy theory and is not sourced at their website. Most references are to "files" and "reports" without links to actual documents. What do you think? I am going to make the move if I dont hear any dissent. I made the move, now does anyone think it should be deleted?

the move you made seems appropriate.--Alhutch 23:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High School

A woman wrote to the help desk saying that Cruise went to Trinity High School. The NNDB states he attended 8 elementary schools and 3 high schools. [2]. His Who's Who entry for 2006 states he graduated from Glen Ridge High School. Capitalistroadster 05:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Holmes

I've completely reworked the article on Katie Holmes and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes. PedanticallySpeaking 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] especially litigious when it comes to allegations or inferences of homosexuality

Just tidied the previous edit which added Cruise being especially litigious when it comes to allegations or inferences of homosexuality. Thoughts? Glen Stollery (My contributions) 20:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity drop, temporary???

There is little doubt his popularity is still significantly below previous levels - he is the top contender for the Razzies (worst acting awards) next month! Why does this say "at least temporarily" as following that logic couldn't anything be 'temporary'? (eg; Michael Jackson's popularity drop - just temporary also?) Surely we can't comment on what may happen in the future. Why not just leave at his popularity as a result has dropped (numerous surveys confirm this also). Glen Stollery (My contributions) 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rob thomas?

Can someone explain to me what is the relation of Rob Thomas with Tom Cruise?

Sure. They are both male, entertainers, married, and Americans. Plus, "Tom" is short for "Thomas". That's it, I think. -- Jalabi99 09:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blackmail

Check this out. It's a recent bit that explains Cruise is threatening to refuse publicity for the third installment of Mission Impossible unless executives permanently remove "Trapped in the Closet" from their lineup. This certainly seems to warrant an update, but I may leave it for those with better skill. --AWF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.54.97.151 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Clean-up

This article needs some clean-up. Almost every single sentence in the article is ended with an outside-link. I dont think this proper MoS. What do you guys think? Tutmosis 00:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering Cruise is notoriously litigious, and that Scientology invites controversy and is itself notoriously litigious, too much documentation is not a bad thing for this topic. JuanOso 01:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand that, but im talking about the large amount of external links integrated into the article. They should either be in External Links section or References. Tutmosis 01:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with sourcing in the article itself. That's done in many of the longer articles here at Wiki. I think that's better than a list of 50 references at the end of the piece. That's often less accurate, as one cannot tell which statement in the article is linked to which reference. It's easier for vandals and pranksters to slip in unsubstantiated material that way. JuanOso 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide an example of another article which does this? Tutmosis 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Look at Tom DeLay for a good example. JuanOso 02:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Ill drop this now although still it doesnt look right to me. Tutmosis 03:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've implemented WP:FN and updated a big chunk of links. Lots more to go. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I downloaded the South Park episode from XENU.NET

And I feel naughty. I don't see nothing offensive though. Just the regular South Park stuff. I guess Cruise wants his fellow scientologists to stop thinking he is an asshole after the "couch" incident by pretending to be all bad and tough. So far Jenna Elfman and Beck are still good people in my book.

No need to feel naughty at southparkstudios.com Matt and Trey state: ""Matt and Trey [creators] do not mind when fans download their episodes off the Internet; they feel that it’s good when people watch the show no matter how they do it." So enjoy! Image:glenstollery.gifPOW! 10:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I did enjoy it. I wasn't denouncing or trying to get xenu.net sued. I was sharing the joy! So, EVERYONE GO TO XENU.NET AND DOWNLOAD AND DISTRIBUTE THE TORRENT! And, Tom, when Scientology starts to do advertizing with Beck's music instead than with your sorry ass face then maybe I'll consider to go and fight the aliens for everlasting peace! LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!
I think Matt & Trey have a healthy appreciation for the benefits of the digital re-distribution of their work, believing that "no publicity is bad publicity". Besides, they realize that they have made so much money from the show that a couple of million people downloading and sharing one measly episode of it won't bankrupt them. Plus, the more people that see the episode, the better they will understand the rather strange foundations of the beliefs of Scientology. "And then I pulled out my GUN!..." :) -- Jalabi99 09:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Cult" of Scientology

I think Tom Cruise's outspoken belief in Scientology warrants inclusion in the opening paragraph, but why is described as a "cult?" Seems needlessly POV to me. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are LOTS of references on the internet and elsewhere that describe Scientology as a "cult." This is nothing new and really not POV. Dr. Cash 04:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The founder has said that scientology is neither psychology, nor a religion. What else would it be other than a cult?

It is called a cult because it is a cult. Unfortunately the facts have an anti-scientology bias.

Scientology may or not be a cult, depending on who you ask.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

Meanings of the word "cult":

The English word "cult" comes from the French "culte," which came from the Latin word "cultus" (care and adoration), which came from the Latin word "colere" (to cultivate).

There is no generally accepted, single, current definition for the word "cult," or for many other religious terms. This leads to confusion over the meanings of certain religious terms, such as Christian, cult hell, heaven, occult, Paganism, salvation, Witch, Witchcraft, Unitarian, Universalist, Voodoo, etc. A reader must often look at the context in which the word is used in order to guess at the intent of the writer.

In the newsgroup alt.usage.english, terms like this one are often called "skunk words." They have varied meanings to different people. In fact, they have so many meanings that they often cause misunderstandings wherever they are used. Unfortunately, most people do not know this, and naturally assume that the meaning that they have been taught is the universally accepted definition of the term.

[edit] Wives

Is it worth mentioning that each wife is 11 years younger than the previous? It's not particularly relevant but it is a fun trivia fact. --Peter Robinett 01:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Ace Class Shadow 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I read this section and was also very confused about the possible relevancy - apparently someone forgot to add in Katie's birth year, making the statement rather useless. Fixed. --AgentIrons 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It says "Curiously enough, the years of birth of his wives are 11 years apart: Mimi Rogers - 1956, Nicole Kidman - 1967, Katie Holmes - 1978." - Um... as far as I know, Tom and Katie aren't married (yet)!!! Am I wrong here?! Emily (Funtrivia Freak) 01:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography

Does anyone but me agree that his biography needs to be revamped and have more flow and be more descriptive? I'm about to rewrite it all. McDonaldsGuy 05:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, I just removed a section at this was not true for his fans at all and this is way out of date. Checking the media out, Tom Cruise’s popularity is extremely high. Cruisefan 20:40, June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High School Dropout?

Why is he in the High School Dropouts category? It says he graduated from some high school in Jersey. There's no mention of him being a dropout anywhere else in the article. I say we remove him from that category. ColinKennedy 15:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Anyone know why that category is there? Cine 10:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I've just added a POV dispute tag to the top of the article. For the record, I don't consider myself a Tom Cruise fan (I can name maybe four of his movies?), but this article is blatantly not NPOV. I'll start adding specific blurbs to this subsection shortly... Justen Deal 23:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Again not a huge fan, just wondering if there really is need for separate 'scientology' and 'controversies' sections. Take up extra length and essentially keep talking about the same thing. gunslotsofguns 19:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

To be fair, here are the facts——(about the article, not tommy——: Apparently, NO ONE cares enough to really work at this article. Just look at the edit history. Sure, this article probably has some of the fastest patrollers watching it, but that's about all you'll see in the way of "good edits". Just chance a days history. (the "cur" button) it's scary how little new information "gets through" (is good and encyclopedic enough to meet patroller's standards, that is).

Or at least, that's how it used to be. Since the tag was added, people seem to actually acknowledge that there's a problem. The overal quality of a dys edits to fix that problem have improved, I think. Sure, you might say "Labels suck! Just a lazy wikipedian's sad excuse for editing." but that's not always true.

Sometimes, you cannot "fix" an article all by yourself, especially when it lists information of a (mostly/hopefully) factual nature. Personally, I try to avoid unnecessary tagging and unpopular templates, but if it fits and (more importantly, if it) helps, you've gotta leave them until you or someone else truly fixes the article to the point where such tags don't fit. So, if it doesn't you must acqu...oh wait, wrong closer. Where'd johnny's notes come from? Eh. Where was I? Oh yeah!

So, if a label, not matter how..."unsightly"...is actually helping an article, why should it be removed before the article is improved to perfection? I'll say right now that in many ways I am a beginner wikipedian, but if my opinion means anything, I say we put it back and keep it there until this article is as unbiased as Lady Justice herself. Ace Class Shadow 06:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Placenta

Wikibooks
Wikibooks Cookbook has an article on

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

[edit] "Suri Cruise?"

Mancow on Fox News 4/21 pointed out that this sounded like Tom's birthplace of Syracuse, NY. I think this is a joke, and so is eating the placenta.

[edit] Removal of NPOV tag

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


[edit] Vandal

I just corrected a vandalization of this page. Someone had changed the opening line "Tom Cruise (born etc....) to "Tom Cruise is gay (born etc.....). Since I am new here, I am not sure if I have to report this, or what. rhmoore 10:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you don't have to. A summary such as "rvv" or "reverted vandalism" is helpful in the edit summary box though. Dismas|(talk) 10:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
This page is quite a favourite target for vandalism, so apart from using the edit summary, you could also leave a warning message on the talk page of the user. gunslotsofguns 04:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why writing Cruise is gay should be considered vandalism, because it is merely stating a fact.

[edit] Would anyone else

just love to smack Tom? Or is it just me? Uncyclopedic, I know. But there is something seriously wrong with this guy. --69.145.123.171 05:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You are so right.
He's a crazy little midgit.

[edit] Inappropriate adoption langauge

In the section discussing the birth of Cruise's and Holmes' child, Suri, I found the following:

On April 18, 2006 Holmes gave birth to a baby girl named Suri, the first child for both Holmes and Cruise although the latter has two adopted children: Connor Antony (born January 17, 1995) and Isabella Jane (born December 22, 1992) from his marriage to Nicole Kidman.[1]

As an adopted child (now an adult) and an adoptive mother I really have to object to this language. Suri is most emphatically NOT Cruise's first child. The two children he adopted with Kidman as are much "his" children as this child. Suri should properly be referred to as his third child, but his first "biological" child. I am making the appropriate change to the text. If you need references to appropriate adoption language, leave a message here and I wll get it for you.

espanglish

How is "It's" appropriate language when referring to a child? I've fixed "it". - Nunh-huh 07:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding. I don't believe I ever referred to the child as "it." The sentence I rewrote is as follows: On April 18, 2006 Holmes gave birth to a baby girl named Suri, the first child for Holmes and the third child for Cruise who had adopted two children with Nicole Kidman [1]: Connor Antony (born January 17, 1995) and Isabella Jane (born December 22, 1992).

You may not have, but someone did: the sentence I fixed was "It's the first child for Holmes and third for Cruise, who (as previously mentioned) has two adopted children with Nicole Kidman. " - Nunh-huh 07:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removed

I have removed the following;

with the help of African Monkeys,the film sold over a lot of tickets. In an ironic twist of events,

and

or 7,654,465 Pesos at the Mecksekon package station,


I'm guessing their were no monkeys... but if their were I bet they were paid pesos... Morgan Leigh 10:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superdrug

Um... Why is there a picture of Superdrug in Oxford Street? What does this have to do with Tom Cruise?

[edit] Jewish?

There is some talk around Tinseltown and elsewhere that Cruise is a Jew that has hidden his ethnic/religious identity for the sake of mass popularity. Has anyone else heard anything to this effect? It seems the rumors are getting pretty strong... --64.12.116.204 17:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, because Jews find it so difficult to survive in Hollywood. Wake up.
Like Geraldo Rivera whose actually jewish, and has a completely different name.
Bad Example since Geraldo Rivera is Jewish from his mother's side and Puerto Rican on his father's. Are you sure it wasn't 'a homosexual who has hidden his sexual identity for the sake of mass popularity'? David Cheater 16:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A List?

I know this is an extremely subjective lable, but at this point, should this article still be referring to Cruise as "A List?"

No

Before he lost his mind? Ya, prolly. Now? No. The guy's a nut.Casual Karma 07:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

He was never A list. He's alsways been a second rate actor, since he's become nuts he has got even worse. 205.188.116.133 11:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't A-list quasi-quantitative? And besides, even if his box-office pull is slipping (see MI III pulls in $400M worldwide), it's still gargantuan, and people and the media are still obsessed with him, if not more than ever. Topher0128 03:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A small selection of people along with the media maybe obsessive over Tom Cruise, but most of us here on planet earth don't give a monkeys. Bring on the flops please! 74.65.39.59 16:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

He made $75 million from MI:III. If that's not A-list, what is? Quiik 16:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexual Tom

It seems quite odd that whenever someone talks about Tom being gay he throws a fit and sometimes a lawsuit with it. To me, that seems suspicious in itself. If he isn't gay or bisexual, he wouldn't care, just shrug it off, since rumors are so common in Hollywood. Usually if someone is THAT angry over a rumor like that, good chance it means it's true. Does anyone else agree with me on that? I'm not saying he is most definitely gay or bisexual, but I'm personally suspecting he is one of the two. Black Kat 23:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember, if you post ANYTHING about his relationship with the gay community on Wikipedia, it will be removed. They have made that QUITE clear. 65.74.48.115 09:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty sad that you aren't even allowed to comment on that. Sounds to me like wikipedia might be getting a little bias. Black Kat 24:07 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is interesting. Although you may be justified in asserting that if someone is neither gay nor bisexual they wouldn't care and just shrug it off, it may well be that if the allegations of homosexuality were repeated relentlessly, a straight guy would eventually get really annoyed and react strongly against them. I could understand that. secondly, he has kids after all, that makes things complicated. If he were to say nothing, later in life the kids may be left with some doubt: why did Dad say nothing? Was there someting in the allegations?
I am intrigued by your assertion that "if you post ANYTHING about his relationship with the gay community on Wikipedia, it will be removed." Can you expand a little on this? Why do you say it, what has been removed? After all, if you have reliable sources, Wikipedia MUST allow it! Veduny 23:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of celebrities have rumors about them, and the fact that he goes so crazy is quite odd to me. Other people have been called gay, and they ignored it. Everytime he's called gay, he throws fits and sues people unless they take it back. He made such a big deal out of South Park, when they blast everyone. Along with that, considering the rumor is holding out so strongly, that means more than likely he is gay. It's known when someone is gay and hiding it, if someone says something, the homosexual will become abnormally angry. Though it's not always, I've seen it with more than one guy. If he wasn't, the rumor would start to die off, not get stronger. Black Kat 11:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Odd perhaps but not necessarily meaning that he is gay. The guy is (1)a renowned control freak, so cannot stand any attacks (2) is extremely bad at PR (he got rid of his PR Pat Kingsley replacing her with his sister,which was a PR disaster) (3)he is not very tall (shorter than Nicole Kidman and ~Katie , making him seem the weaker partner - it annoys him and makes him defensive) and (4) cute - in a certain way, so has probably always been subject to these rumors and is thus is EXTRA sensitive. Perhaps he has something in his makeup that is predjudiced about homosexuality that makes him react so strongly. Perhaps you are right. Veduny 19:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Removal of Scientology Template

I think the Scientology template on the right hand side is unnecessary. Although his membership in the church is certainly relevant, he isn't famous because he's a Scientologist. Using celebrities who are Chrisitians as a precedent (since we don't put the Christianity template on their pages), I'd like to see it removed, if there's a consensus. Topher0128 03:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. There are plenty of links to scientology for the interested readers and an entire section on the scientology aspects of Tom Cruise's life.

[edit] Removal of double statement

It's twice lsited about his split with Paramount - once under the Split Heading (current events) and once under miscellaneous. Perhaps remove from the misc. section? knightrojen 04:33, 06 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Can someone please add Image:Tom Cruise Top Gun sunset.jpg and Image:Tripod in action.jpg back into the article. People removed them because they had no rationale. They do now. I can't edit the page for some reason, so can they be added back in please.

[edit] Regarding "The Eye" & "I Married A Witch"

In case your wondering, these are two new filsm that Tom is connected two. However, they can only be viewed at here: [3]

[edit] What has happened to the world?

I would just like to take the opportunity to say this. I don't think he's crazy. I think that he fell in love and o my...he went off script and spoke from his heart. So he jumped on a couch and spoke his mind to Brooke. Has anyone checked out all this scientology or just made snap judgements? I have checked it out. I was curious as to what all the "hoopla" was about. It's not like anything that I have read in the tabloids. I say, go for it Tom and Katie. Enjoy your life and your children and let the rest go rot. We are not all that stupid!

[edit] His images not to be used in games/etc

But wait, what about the Nintendo 64 Mission Impossible game?

[edit] Tom Cruise Katie Holmes

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

[edit] Please add io and oc

oc:Tom Cruise io:Tom Cruise Thanks.

[edit] Surname

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

I just assumed from the heading that "Cruise" is his middle name. Topher0128 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about his surname

In an HBO interview of Tom Cruise in 1992, Tom stated that he was Croatian (Possibly born in Croatia, I don't remember) and his name was Tomislav Kruzić He had later changed his name to Tom Cruise (Tomislav Kruzić (Kruz sounds exactly like Cruise))

So what is the story?

Emperor of Europe 20:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see the citation provided for Cruise's parents which goes in to some detail. --Yamla 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Born in Croatia!!! LOL! Not exactly.... Mad Jack 05:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive Language

I re-introduced the text in the INTRO that that been reverted on this actor. The reason why I re-wrote the intro initially is because the language was abusive. Intros of encyclopedial articles should summarize a person's life and/or achievement, and not necessarily highlight the negative instances of the personality's life which are temporary anyway. Actually there is quite a bit of coverage on this later in the article. I hope this clarifies things for writers here and help them contribute to articles for which they will be commended....NeutralWriter

[edit] GA failing

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

Fred-Chess 16:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of consecutive $100 Million movies

In the opening paragraph there is a statement that says that Tom Cruise is the only actor to have starred in 6 consecutive $100 Million movies (domestic gross). He has actually starred in 7 and he's not the only one. Tom Hanks also has 7 consecutive $100 million movies. However, if Tom Cruise's next movie also grosses over $100 million then he'll be the only person to have reached that milestone as Tom Hanks' streak has already ended.

Tom Cruise 5/5/06 Mission: Impossible III $133,501,348 6/29/05 War of the Worlds $234,280,354 8/6/04 Collateral $101,005,703 12/5/03 The Last Samurai $111,127,263 6/21/02 Minority Report $132,072,926 12/14/01 Vanilla Sky $100,618,344 5/24/00 Mission: Impossible II $215,409,889


Tom Hanks 12/25/02 Catch Me If You Can $164,615,351 7/12/02 Road to Perdition $104,454,762 12/22/00 Cast Away $233,632,142 12/10/99 The Green Mile $136,801,374 11/19/99 Toy Story 2 $245,852,179 12/18/98 You've Got Mail $115,821,495 7/24/98 Saving Private Ryan $216,540,909

  • According to BoxOfficeMojo.com
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/m/Talk%7ETom_Cruise_59e4.html"