Talk:Katie Holmes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After posting a request for comments to archiving this page on June 20, 2006 and hearing no objections, I created an archive today. Discussions before July 1, 2006 are archived at Talk:Katie Holmes/Archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 13:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kissing Katie Holmes
This section had been in the article for a while but I took it out. I don't see any reason for its inclusion as it has no direct relation to Holmes.Joshua4 19:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
what the heck is the point about some magazine article imagining a fantasy sequence where they sign a contract and it's all fraud? seriously, that is so ridiculous to put in there, this is an encyclopedia about katie holmes, some magazine that writes some fictional story about her makes no sense to be put in here, that wouldnt even go on the page about the criticism of the couple! someone just wants to make things look a certain way and load it up with as much of that as they can.<Johnpedia 11:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)>
p.s. oh god, read the "stop the nonsense" writeup further down on this page. this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA PAGE OF INFORMATION. scary that you don't understand that.
==
[edit] The name Suri
In Saudi Arabia/Arabian gulf countries. Suri is a nickname for Sarah. It's very common to use it instead of Sarah but not a formal name. 213.251.134.44 08:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Suri also means "pickpocket" in Japanese. -Tacubus 11:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Why does Suri Cruise redirect to the Katie Holmes article? Granted, there's no hard evidence Suri actually exists, apart from TomKat's Scientologist friends; which means there isn't a lot of info (even for a stub) … but why redirect to Katie as opposed to, say, Tom Cruise? --Micahbrwn 06:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that Suri Cruise should have her own article and the fact that it is directed to Katie Holmes is kind of... dumb. She is her own person and although their is no 'proof' of her existing yet you could also put that in there. Just saying. Also the reason it isnt directed to Tom Cruise is because the baby did in fact come out of Katie, not Tom. :-P--Angela 19:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
→I agree with Bandaid. There is not enough info on Suri yet. It makes sense to put Suri in the Katie Holmes article becuse she in fact gave birth to Suri. Tom only played a small part.ShadowWriter 00:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please see WP:UNDEL for information on how to undelete articles. --Yamla 19:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
How old is the baby? Until the child actually has any notability of their own (assuming of course it does), it should redirect here. A baby who hasn't learned to talk, walk or do anything for itself yet has no notability of it's own and (I know this sounds clinical) is really only a feature of it's parents for encyclopedic purposes unless there are extraordinary circumstances (I'm struggling to think of an example; an infant heir to a throne that is orphaned or something?). I came and checked this out expecting fancruft but was surprised to see a very encyclopedic article. Let's keep it that way rather than confusing media interest and fan interest for notability. Elomis 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wow!
Kudos to those that penned Katie's page. Not only is it detailed but you've got the references.
Katie would be proud to have obsessive fans that have high acedemic standards. - Htra0497 20:00, 14 July 2006 (AET)
-
- As the principal author of the page, thank you very much. PedanticallySpeaking 12:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] overdone
this article seems really long and drawn out. i understand it's well referenced but i really think it needs to be pared down a little.
[edit] Fair use images
I'm not extremely familiar with Wikipedia's fair use policy, but is it true that no fair use image is allowed on an article if a free-licensed one has been located? It's just that the fair use images on the article have recently been removed for this reason. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 21:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is not correct and restored those images. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it is correct if the copyrighted image is being used for the same purpose. Thus, a copyrighted image to depict Ms. Holmes may not be used if a free image is available. But a copyrighted image of Ms. Holmes posing on the cover of Playboy (hypothetically) would be fair-use if attached to a paragraph discussing the resulting controversy. --Yamla 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SURI SIGHTINGS
How come there is nothing on the article about the Suri sightings?? Leah Remini and Jada Pinkett Smith have spotted Suri and described her. Yet nothing in the Katie Holmes or Tom Cruise articles talks about it. Lil Flip246 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Because those people were paid to say they saw Suri. Suri doesn't exist. It was a faked pregnancy, and they were planning to adopt someone. The real mom had her, and changed her mind. At least that is my take on it.Casual Karma 07:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] about her missing
where did the info go where it said katie went missing for 2 weeks so much that no one could get into contact with her before announcing that her and tom were dating? that shouldnt have been deleted that continues to prove to people that scientology is a brainwashing unit
- This was noted in an article on the Fox News Channel's website. I removed it because of the lack of sourcing for the claim. If you have a reliable source stating this, let me know and I'll see about restoring the information. PedanticallySpeaking 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why would this be of intrest anyway? Celbs are often not seen for a few days or weeks for varouis reasons. Just because she was not seen for two weeks before she started dating Tom might not even be related.ShadowWriter 23:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's another excellent point that I also should have made. PedanticallySpeaking 14:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why would this be of intrest anyway? Celbs are often not seen for a few days or weeks for varouis reasons. Just because she was not seen for two weeks before she started dating Tom might not even be related.ShadowWriter 23:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- This information had been restored, again citing to the same dubious source, and I again removed it today. PedanticallySpeaking 16:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] references
do you know that it is possible to use <ref>reference name="any_memo_name_choosen"</ref> to avoid doublon. it is quality article but more than 80 references is a bit reluctant (and as there are doublons I thing there are work to do...). I can help a while --Ayanoa 15:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you saying, hun?
[edit] Name Suri
The name suri DOES come from the hebrew princess (from the word "sar" which means officer), and is an Ashkenazi variation on the name Sarah (in Genesis Sarah is names 'Sarai'. It is a very popular hebrew name among Ashkenazi Jews outside of Israel who consider it their hebrew name. It comes from the hebrew, even if it is not in the israeli pronunciation. I wonder if the Israelis interviewed knew this when they said that it means "get out of here". They probably did.
216.106.49.131 08:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name
If the name of Katie on the birth certificate of Suri is Kate Noelle "Katie" Holmes shouldn't we write that, even if everyone writes just Katie Holmes? It must be the correct name, if it's there. --80.63.213.182 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It's her common name. It really has no effect, I think. --TopGear 00:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would always refer to her as "Katie Holmes" but in the first sentence it is Wikipedia practice to give people's legal names, if known. So that's what I've done and documented the same in a footnote. PedanticallySpeaking 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I always thought her first name was Katherine and her parents just shortened it to Katie. Could we look into her name a little more?ShadowWriter 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Please click on this link! Citizen Dick 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Again About Suri
I added some parts about the name "Suri" according to some references. Iran ‘s "National Organization for Civil Registration" [1] has a website which you can search a name and find how many people with that name exist in Iran. The problem with the site is that one can not link to an entry directly. So, if you want to check the credibility of the “3184” SuriS, please go here [2] and in the blank area cut and paste this سوری . by the way my aunt's nick is also Suri! "--Pejman47 23:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article's bibliography is becoming very long
You people should cull it. There are far, far too many. Having all the citations is fine, but there's too much bibliography. Maybe include the bibliographical information relevant to any given citation within that citation (like most American scholars do nowadays).
[edit] Babe-O-Rama?
The dismissive reference to Michelle Williams might be a little uncalled for. If anything, Williams has a better repuutation as an actress now than does Holmes. Cranston Lamont 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Surname
On November 18, there were changing to the article indicating that Holmes had changed her surname to "Cruise." Doing some quick googling, I don't see any references indicating that she's changed her name. I've therefore reverted it to Holmes unless there is sufficient evidence that she has. Sean Hayford O'Leary 07:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Please dont use foul language and post myspace links.
[edit] What the hell!
What is wrong with whoever keeps re-adding that made-up journalist's fantasy sequence about if the TomKat relationship were fake. That has NOTHING to do with Katie Holmes! Yes, the conspiracy about their relationship being fake does, but that huge paragraph is just put there to try and subconsciously influence people's opinions of her. STOP IT! GET A LIFE! Why do you even care? IF you hate her so much then why do you keep coming back here and posting it? Why don't you go do sometyhing productive or something to be proud about, something is extremely wrong with you and it's extremely disturbing to see someone care so much to make lies up like that and spread them. Why would u do that to her? why do u even care? youre possessed. Johnpedia 17:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well clearly someones a fan. Take a chill pill though. -- Lima Golf Talk | Contributions 21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Eh, I can't stand fans like that either.--71.235.72.188 03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More recent sources
Staff. "Inside Katie's Prison: Crying Over Tom's Threats", US Weekly, Victoria Lasdon Rose, March 21, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-03-23.
Staff. "Katie Holmes Punished!", Star, March 15, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-03-23.
These should be incorporated into the article. Smee 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
- Here are some more references
Walls, Jeannette. "Is Katie Holmes breaking free of Cruise control?", MSNBC, NBC, April 19, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-04-21.
Staff. "Katie to enrol Suri into 'kiddie Catholicism' classes", New Zealand Herald, APN Holdings NZ Limited, April 22, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-04-22.
Staff. "Putting the brakes on Cruise control", Miami Herald, April 19, 2007.
Oliveira, Maira. "Katie Will Reportedly Sign Up Suri For "Kiddie Catholicism" Classes", All Headline News, April 20, 2007.
AP and Post Wire Services. "Crui$ing for Cash", New York Post, April 19, 2007.
Staff. "Cruise to detox NY", Sunday Times, Australia, April 19, 2007.
Smith, Kyle. "Don't Be Tricked By $ci-Fi Tom-Foolery", New York Post, April 20, 2007.
Seifman, David. "Crui$e is 'Detox' of De Town", New York Post, April 20, 2.
Sanchez, Hazel. "Cruise Thinks Scientology Can Save 9/11 Responders", WCBS-TV, CBS, April 20, 2007.
Staff. "Tom Cruise holds fundraiser for Scientology 9/11 detox project", WABC-TV, ABC, April 20, 2007.
These should be incorporated into the article as well. Smee 08:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
-
- I've looked at these and I don't think they have anything of value to add to the article because they are either gossipy or about Cruise rather than Holmes. Many of them have no real sourcing--"rumored", "reportedly", or quoting dubious sources such as Life & Style. PedanticallySpeaking 18:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Suri Cruise
I suggested adding a link to some Suri Cruise photos under the [Katie Holmes] article, but it was quickly removed. Is it time to start an independent Suri Cruise article? There seems to be enough news and noteworthy information about her that she has already become a celebrity in her own right- deserving more than just a [redirect] to her mother. Thoughts? Patchagogo 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- What has Suri Cruise done that is notable independently from Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes? I'm not aware of even one notable incident but I've not been keeping up on the latest news. --Yamla 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
When the child was born we briefly had a Suri article separate from Holmes. It was put on AFD and the vote was to merge it with Holmes's article. PedanticallySpeaking 18:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bibliography revisited
Some time ago I suggested trimming of the bibliography section. The only response I got was connected with citing sources but all the references are clearly made in the reference section. In comparison, similar FA like Angelina Jolie have no such section. Besides, it contains 100+ items and is therefore useless. So I am going to remove all of it. If any of the items is important for the article, please state its importance. --Tone 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Can someone properly put a link to what a "bomb" is? I placed brackets around the slang term and was accused of vandalism by an admin because it linked to the traditional definition of being that of a weapon of mass destruction. Not all users will understand that a "bomb" is a film that performs poorly at the box office.
[edit] Redundant flag icon in the infobox?
I see this article uses Toledo, Ohio, USA to identify the origin of the subject. Would it be all right with just Toledo, Ohio, USA instead? I don't think the little flag really adds any encyclopedic information. See WP:FLAG for more detail on this. --John 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'll take it down in the next 24 hours or so unless someone can come up with a good reason for keeping it. --John 05:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Hometown Reaction"
I took out this section:
- Even before Holmes' engagement, her hometown paper was already speculating about "what happens if our very own 'good ole Katie' morphs into 'Katie Holmes, the former actress now better known as Tom Cruise's third wife.'"[1] Following the engagement, the Chicago Tribune sent a reporter to Toledo who found the citizens felt the biggest star from their city was not Holmes, but Jamie Farr, who played Corporal Maxwell Klinger on M*A*S*H. "I think he's bigger than Katie. He's so humble and he's so proud of his hometown—he name-drops it all the time. If it wasn't for Jamie, I don't think people would really know about Toledo", said a Toledo waitress. Others quoted by the newspaper were puzzled by her interest in Scientology. Farr subsequently wrote a letter to the newspaper declaring "I admire Katie Holmes. She is a wonderful, beautiful actress" and "I do not feel that Katie and I are in any form of competition in the city of Toledo."[2][3]
This seems to be just repeating a few comments from a couple of newspaper stories. I don't think it is important enough for an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour 05:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Topless scene
Is it really necessary to say that the movie was her first (and only) topless scene? It seems a little trivial. -OptimistPrime 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images
For a featured article, the images in this entry do very little to show the reader what Katie looks like. Topher0128 18:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you can find better freely-licensed images, we'd love to have them. We can't use fair-use images for this, though, as per WP:FU. --Yamla 18:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
This page has been vandalized, the entire bottom of the article is gone. – Ilse@ 20:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- There was a problem with S. M. Sullivan's edit. AndroidCat 22:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Katie Holmes birth name is Katherine Noelle Holmes
Despite many claims to the contrary, Katie Holmes birth name is Katherine Noelle Holmes.
Please click on the references below for proof:
Citizen Dick 17:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- In an interview, cited in my footnote--once removed, now restored--she said "my name is Kate." Suri Cruise's birth certificate--linked to in the footnote--gives her name as "Kate." The fact that these two sources, which are dubious, say otherwise is not persuasive. PedanticallySpeaking 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Katie Holmes first pregnancy before Tom Cruise's baby
A watered down version with a reliable MSNBC source is in the works. KatieHfan (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hiding this in a footnote isn't the solution. The MSNBC page is "Tabloid Tidbits" - that alone makes it questionable. It appears to be based on a National Enquirer article, also questionable. The source is an unnamed guy who claims to be a friend of Chris Klein - questionable. And the MSNBC page says "A spokesperson for Holmes says the Enquirer story is false." In the WT:BLP link above, the only comment so far was agreeing this should go. Gimmetrow 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Calling scientology a religion
I fail to see how it is neutral to call it a religion. The only supportive argument that it is a religion and not a cult is made by the cult itself. Putting "church" in the name of an organization does not meet the definition of religion. Thus using this name is not neutral and is biased towards the organization. Calling it a cult is more than neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeThoughts (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reliable sources call it a religion. Wikipedia is based on reliable and verifiable sources. Constantly removing any mention of "religion" when it comes to Scientology is POV pushing, plain and simple. --clpo13(talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- To FreeThoughts, we're not going to be calling it a cult. Using "religion" would be fine; the source here has "Katie Holmes says she is embracing the tenets of Scientology, the religion of her boyfriend, Tom Cruise". The two versions in the article are "joined Scientology" and "converted to Cruise's religion, Scientology". Is "joined" really worth reverting? Gimmetrow 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article sited did not refer to it as a religion for this even. There is much dispute across countries addressing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.36 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- How is "embracing the tenets of Scientology, the religion of her boyfriend" not referring to Scientology as a religion? If this can't be resolved, this article will end up quoting the source verbatim. Gimmetrow 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to a verbatim quote if it would avoid silly edit wars like this. This article in particular has been the target of removal of the word "religion" in the context of Scientology over the past couple of days. --clpo13(talk) 22:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- For all intents and purposes, Scientology is considered a religion and is classified as such. Whether people agree with that or certain countries recognize it as one isn't the point. Every religion or set of beliefs have their critics. In my opinion, this article isn't here to establish whether or not Scientology is a cult or a religion, it's about Katie Holmes. This only became a problem in the last couple of days when, seemingly, one registered editor and some anonymous IPs decided to change this article and any other article connected with Scientology. If it's that big of a deal, I found an article written by a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary that covers this topic and addresses this very question. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that it shouldnt be labeled a cult, and this isnt the place for it. But the debate about if she "convered" to scientology is valid. Either directly quote the article, or leave it as joined a "church" —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoSaysNo (talk • contribs) 01:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- For all intents and purposes, Scientology is considered a religion and is classified as such. Whether people agree with that or certain countries recognize it as one isn't the point. Every religion or set of beliefs have their critics. In my opinion, this article isn't here to establish whether or not Scientology is a cult or a religion, it's about Katie Holmes. This only became a problem in the last couple of days when, seemingly, one registered editor and some anonymous IPs decided to change this article and any other article connected with Scientology. If it's that big of a deal, I found an article written by a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary that covers this topic and addresses this very question. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to a verbatim quote if it would avoid silly edit wars like this. This article in particular has been the target of removal of the word "religion" in the context of Scientology over the past couple of days. --clpo13(talk) 22:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- How is "embracing the tenets of Scientology, the religion of her boyfriend" not referring to Scientology as a religion? If this can't be resolved, this article will end up quoting the source verbatim. Gimmetrow 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article sited did not refer to it as a religion for this even. There is much dispute across countries addressing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.36 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- To FreeThoughts, we're not going to be calling it a cult. Using "religion" would be fine; the source here has "Katie Holmes says she is embracing the tenets of Scientology, the religion of her boyfriend, Tom Cruise". The two versions in the article are "joined Scientology" and "converted to Cruise's religion, Scientology". Is "joined" really worth reverting? Gimmetrow 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
My earlier points are invalid and in fact do openly violate NPOV. My apologiesin referencing it as a cult. --FreeThoughts (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bibliography
User:Tone removed the bibliography section. I was thinking of doing the same, but there are sources in the text which refer to the bibliography, like "Cohen". The bibliography listed two sources by Cohen but at least it narrows the possibilities to (hopefully) those two articles. If we can't get the reference info from this version moved in a reasonable time, I think it should be restored until someone is willing to do the work. Gimmetrow 18:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Her ugly ass picture
Could you guys GET a more UGLY picture of her? I mean good lord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.169.121 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TomKat's marriage impossible
Rolfe, Peter (April 20, 2008). TomKat's marriage impossible: Has Katie Holmes lost that loving feeling for Tom Cruise? Friends say she has finally succumbed to the crushing weight of their high-profile relationship.. Herald Sun. News.com.au. Retrieved on 2008-04-19.
[edit] Suri
Why the hell is suri asian? so caucasian+caucasian=asian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.21.240 (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)