Misplaced Pages

Talk:Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Justallofthem (talk | contribs) at 16:28, 11 February 2009 (__FORCETOC__). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:28, 11 February 2009 by Justallofthem (talk | contribs) (__FORCETOC__)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
A fact from Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 November 2007. A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2007/November.
Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconBooks B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.


Sources to add

Reviews of audiobook
Will add this later. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Suri's Parentage

Two of the sources used in the article make references to the allegation that Suri Cruise was somehow conceived with frozen sperm from L. Ron Hubbard, yet the article has no content on the matter. I have myself seen several articles reference the matter. Morton himself said in an interview with USA Today that he thought the idea was absurd, but that the hysteria with which the pregnancy was greeted made it plausible that some of them might have believed it. Perhaps some sort of statement regarding it should be included? John Carter (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Cirt (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe something to the effect of what Morton said here, that the idea had been mentioned on the Internet before his book, and that while he himself says it is "absurd", it's plausible some members of the Church itself might have believed it. So maybe,
The book also makes mention of the theory that Cruise's daughter by Katie Holmes was conceived using frozen sperm from L. Ron Hubbard. While the author himself has stated he finds the theory absurd, he holds open the possibility that some members of the Church might believe it. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
That sounds fine. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It "sounds fine" that we violate WP:BLP with that trash? --Justallofthem (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Justallofthem (talk · contribs) - please explain your assertion of how you feel this recommended addition to the article suggested by John Carter would violate BLP? Cirt (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(left) Sigh. Try the first line of the policy:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page.

or this one, not soon after:

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist...

Yes, a sensationalist "biography" repeated some even more sensational internet suppositions (how is that for a "source") but even Morton did not take them seriously. Repeating those claims in an encyclopedia is inappropriate unless those claims and their connection with the Morton book is extremely notable, for example if those claims formed the basis of a notable lawsuit against Morton. Simply repeating outlandish and ill-sourced BLP claims because they happen to be in the subject book shows a clear lack of understanding of the basic nature of the BLP policy and of Misplaced Pages, IMO. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC) And here is one that exactly fits and that the proposed edit exactly violates:

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

Q.E.D. Changed your mind yet? --Justallofthem (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Justallofthem (talk · contribs) - I am surprised that a USA Today report recommended by John Carter upon a book that comes from a reliable vetted publisher would prompt this reaction from you. If you like I will take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Cirt, why don't you think for yourself? Do you really not understand the policy and the bit about not repeating gossip that the source itself does not believe? Do you really think that portraying a real child with a real life as some internet critic caricature shows a "a high degree of sensitivity" and is "written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy". How about this one: "The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." Think for yourself, Cirt, and please stop trying to mirror tabloid crap on Misplaced Pages. In fact, why not take a stand against mirroring tabloid crap on Misplaced Pages? Do you really think that ridiculing a child has anything to do with the criticism of Scientology? Or with Misplaced Pages? Are you a parent? --Justallofthem (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Other claims of the book

The article "Cruise biographer: Star has Tinseltown scared" by Bob Minzesheimer, punlished by USA Today on January 15, 2008, makes the following claims regarding the book:

  • That Katie Holmes has private concerns about the marriage and feels "isolated and alone",
  • Nicole Kidman was, after she cut back her involvement with Scientology, "reduced" to Internet camera and e-mail as her means of contacting her adopted children, and,
  • That Cruise is at least uncomfortable around gay men, and possibly homophobic, evidently due to belonging to a "macho religion that claimed to cure homosexuality".

Other statements from that article include David Miscavige being as "controlling, competive, and macho" as Cruise, and that several people in Hollywood were "scared of talking publicly and candidly about Tom Cruise" because the Church of Scientology is "extremely litigious and can be quite intimidating."

The Church including in its response the statement that "British publishers rejected the book because of Morton's inability to prove the truth of his allegations," from the same article. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

John Carter (talk · contribs) - suggested wording for this recommended addition to the article? Cirt (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Categories: