Talk:TomKat/Archive 1

Necessary?

Is this really necessary?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.132.98 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's relevant, yes. And given the notable impact that this couple has had on the world, I'd say that this article is relevant, and it can certainly be expanded on how this couple became a supercouple/the media's fascination with them, some (or preferably a lot of) detail on this that is not included in their individual articles. Flyer22 23:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, think of the big impact - that is... ZERO impact. You are mistaking press coverage for notability ;) --Echosmoke 01:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I feel that you're undermining the two. I am not. And press coverage often constitutes notability for articles on Wikipedia. Flyer22 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, really, this couple has not had an impact on the world? Completely false. This couple is not some regular celebrity couple. It's not like, oh, they happened to get more press coverage and that made the world fascinated with them. Also, just in case it's presumed, I am not a fan of this couple. However, I certainly don't hate them either, and their impact...I do not deny. Flyer22 02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These people have NO relevance at all. How does anything about them effect anything in the world, besides tabloid coverage? Not at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.50.47 (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these people have no relevance at all, then there would not be so much mania surrounding them, even when outside of the United States, and people would not have acted as though their baby was the Second Coming (both theirs and Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's baby). That's pretty much an effect on the world. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vandalism target

I'm surprised by all of the positive and helpful contributions that come into this page. I assumed it would eventually have to be protected due to constant vandalism, as this ocuple is very "high profile", but every time I check diffs from my watchlist for vandalism on TomKat, it's a constructive edit. Kudos to all who help improve this article! нмŵוτн τ 18:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. But I'm still waiting to see if it does become more of a vandalism target. Flyer22 (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is that this couple is irrelevant. Article should be deleted. Not even vandals like me like it.66.201.166.212 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so irrelevant that you dropped by to state how irrelevant the couple is. Truth is...people acted (and probably still act) like this couple consists of two gods. And that's not true of every celebrity couple, and thus is not the definition of irrelevant. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, I'm still not vandalizing the article. It is irrelevant. I stumbled upon it while searching for dangerous cults information... to vandalize. 66.201.166.212 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's irrelevant to you, you say. I say you're tempted, which is why you came to this talk page. I mean, hey, some vandals like to vandalize talk pages. And your logic for what is relevant based on the fact of vandalism counts is off. Either way, if you want to vandalize something here on Wikipedia or have, I'll have fun reverting you. Good day. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO

This article needs to be merged with the main article Tom Cruise, as per WP:NEO ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. I mean, this article is about the couple, not the term. Although, I would rather it be about both. The Posh and Becks article, for example, is about both. I will be expanding that article later, as I will expand this one as well (if it's not deleted or merged). The Posh and Becks article survived two deletion debates because most editors found it notable enough. One could argue that the phrase Posh and Becks is not a neologism, since "the term has been in use since the late 1990s and was included in the Collins Concise English Dictionary in 2001", but I point out that Wikipedia does not say that we cannot have articles on neologisms. It prefers that we do not, but also gives examples in cases were this can be allowed. This may be the case for this article, which still needs more improvement. Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to have this article, when the material can easily fit in the main article about Cruise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument did not hold up with the Posh and Becks article, and if this article is expanded to where it explains the fascination with this couple and perhaps the term, it should not hold up here either. This article allows depth concerning what has made this couple, well, super. Or rather it addresses it. I mean, it will, something their individual articles leave out. And if it were to be included in both of their articles, would only add to redundancy. I'm going to see how much I can improve this article to show it as distinct from the Tom Cruise article and the Katie Holmes article. I was not planning on doing that now, because I am busy with other matters, but since it seems that this article could be nominated for deletion at any moment, I might as well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing this article. And in this case, the text can be easily accommodated in Tom Cruise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained above why this article may be able to stand on its own after expansion and showing it as distinct. If that can happen, then it shouldn't be put into the Tom Cruise article...or the Katie Holmes article, for that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as mentioned and not responded to earlier, why do you say move it to the Cruise article? Why the male and not the female? There is no reason it should go in his and not hers. To be non-sexist, would have to put it in both, & we can't have all of this information in two articles. That would be ridiculous, redundant, and impractical. How would the edit histories line up? And the versions on the two articles would be different and impossible to be kept consistent with each other. Bad idea. These two people are looked at by America and especially the media as one entity: one person, hence the joint article on their lives together. нмŵוτн τ 22:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:BIO, Suri warrants an article of her own, I just realized. нмŵוτн τ 22:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No she doesn't- being born doesn't give notability, and neither does having famous parents. She can have her own article once she becomes notable in her own right, if she ever does. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with notability not being inherited. That's not what I'm talking about here. WP:BIO states that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,3 and independent of the subject." This wasn't the case right away, as most of the sources would have been about the pregnancy in general, not specifically her. However, as she's gotten a little older, controversy has surrounded her. There were rumors that she was going to be the new model for Baby Gap, for example, and there were many article talking about that. It's not my opinion that she meets WP:BIO standards, but per the standards themselves. If people disagree, maybe the guideline should be rewritten. нмŵוτн τ 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure, Unadulterated Rubbish

Speedy burn to the ground and scatter the ashes. -- Of no value whatever; non-notable. — Xiong 熊 talk * 16:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it can be expanded to show how the couple itself is notable. And, again, I'm no fan of this couple, but they are a notable couple...and not just because they are celebrities, considering not all or even most celebrity couples garner this much world-wide fascination. "Pure, Unadulterated Rubbish"? It never ceases to amaze me some editors' detest for anything popular culture on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. But don't scatter the ashes--launch them into space to be with Xenu. Not valuable. Merge into Cruise's and Holmes' pages if anything. This stuff doesn't belong in WP, really. This is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer.--Aresef (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, what, an encyclopedia can't include pop culture? Disagree that this article is not valuable. Just because we have an article on a celebrity supercouple doesn't make it The National Enquirer. And merging all of this into both of their individual articles would be extremely redundant. Merging into only one would be silly. There are people who may not find the article about Anakin Skywalker valuable when his character history can just be summed up in the films' articles, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article about him. Flyer22 (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which stuff in which article? In whose article would Suri be? What about the joint stuff... should it be put in both of their articles, being redundant? нмŵוτн τ 03:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too close for deletion, switching to merge. This has some valuable information, but I don't believe there is any reason to keep it as its own article. The title and style is pandering and unencyclopedic. I say merge this article with either Katie Holmes or Tom Cruise (or both), and then make this page redirect to the TomKat section on their page. Slugmaster (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you didn't mention which information (about both of them) goes in which page? And where would TomKat redirect? Which person? It's no more baout one than the other, so it's impossible to choose one. нмŵוτн τ 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable topic, no reason that it cannot stand.

I don't see how the title of this article is unencyclopedic or pandering. It's no different than if the term TomKat were entered into a dictionary like the term Posh and Becks has been. It makes no sense to delete this article just because of its pop culture name, and when this article can be expanded to be more valuable than what it is. In fact, its pop culture name is more reason the article shouldn't be deleted than reason that it should be. They are notable as a couple, and this article addresses that. Just because they haven't saved any cats from being stuck in trees or anything of the sort as a couple doesn't mean that they are not a notable couple. This is not any regular celebrity couple, as this article touches on already. With some tweaks and more expansion, this can be a really great article and completely distinct of their individual articles. It's already somewhat distinct as it is. I say let it grow. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at this article again, since I visited this talk page before seeing these recent improvements. Anyway, нмŵוτн τ has already made this article more encyclopedic in tone, and it's just been expanded further. Definitely an article that should be kept and is worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Flyer22 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain myself, lest there be misunderstanding. I don't argue that this so-called article be deleted for its title; let's label shit, shit. Nor am I adamantly opposed to pop culture in general. I tolerate Pokemon, though I'm glad to see that my suggestion was finally taken and the army of meaningless ripoffs merged and deleted. No, I say that this topic has no value whatever, on any level.

Cruise is an actor -- rich and popular, yes, but still an actor. His job is to imitate or pretend, to simulate. This has not the importance of, say, a common emergency room physician, whose job it is to save lives and relieve suffering. Granted, Cruise entertains -- not well, perhaps, but with some ability. Yet even as an actor he is poor. He is not merely poor in skill; he is poor as a human being, lacking depth and perspective. Even Leonardo DiCaprio, who previously held the chair of pretty face idiot, has matured somewhat, while Cruise has merely gotten old and still has no more dimension than a sheet of paper. Add to this the fact that Cruise is a Scientology nutcase and you are forced to see that anything he might say unscripted is utterly worthless chatter.

Next, consider Holmes, who has never done any work of quality -- a professional cipher, at best a pretty woman (of which there are more than are notable). Her marriage to Cruise is the most prominent item on her resume. It is impossible to gain any insight into the human condition by gazing into this shallow saucer.

Unite these two and -- as is entirely routine -- an offspring results. They have done absolutely nothing else together of even slight interest. You cannot convince me that jumping on a couch on teevee is deviant, interesting, unusual, noteworthy, or in any way deserving of discussion (and in any case, the two did not do this together). Now, if the man doused himself with gasoline and set himself on fire, yes, I might watch that and want to know why. The child herself is an infant, has done nothing whatever that rates a single glyph, anywhere outside of her parents' hearts.

The single notable phenomenon which this article raises is common to a great range of media "personalities" -- people generally without any real personality who have good press agents and a talent for high-profile temper tantrums. Paris Hilton comes to mind. Such people milk the publicity industry to create a spurious flurry of interest. In Cruise's case, I grant that his career has been sufficient to grant him notability on his own; I'll tolerate Holmes on the same level as South Fremont High School of St. Anthony, Idaho -- this is touted as an encyclopedia, so let it be encyclopedic.

The couple (or family), however, is nothing apart from its members. The words on this page, to whatever extent they do not apply to, or cannot be merged into, individual articles has value only inasmuch as the topic of mediacruft is explored, examined, and discussed.

Merge into Famous for being famous and obliterate with a WMD. — Xiong 熊 talk * 06:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bias. Xiong, all I saw in your very long list of "reasons" that this article should be deleted is your detest for "these types" of celebrities. This article cannot be merged into Famous for being famous, because these two aren't famous for being famous, and the term TomKat certainly doesn't and wouldn't fit there. I'm sure that your comments about how loony Cruise supposedly is doesn't belong on this article's talk page, but I don't have time to worry about that. I'm not trying to convince you about anything concerning this article. And with your feelings for Cruise and Holmes, I wouldn't try to. Flyer22 (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You simply cannot compare Tom Cruise to Paris Hilton (who first became famous for simply being a wealthy socialite from a powerful family). Tom is famous for making dozens of blockbusters for over 15 years. He only became "infamous" (in your opinion) in the past couple of years, and he has continued to make hit movies since then. Katie is famous from starring on a hit television show that was on TV for 5 years. They both reached notability for their acting abilities. нмŵוτн τ 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deliberately misconstrue my opinion, or merely misunderstand? I agree that Cruise is a notable, encyclopedic subject; I have so said. I have even conceded that Holmes is worthy of inclusion in a comprehensive resource. And I believe that the subject of incestuous media frenzy is more important than both together -- if there is any value whatever to this page, it is in how it casts light on that. Therefore, salvage what is possible.

But I maintain that there is absolutely no significance in the fact that two actors have reproduced or contracted to cohabitate. It is not a phenomenon, an event, nor in any way notable. Certainly, I can pick up a supermarket tabloid and learn what color shoes the man has bought Friday; for all I know, every yellow sheet in the bin devotes pages to the fluff. That does not make it encyclopedic. This is pure trash. — Xiong 熊 talk * 12:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure trash to you. No one here is deliberately misconstruing your opinion. It certainly is your opinion. I'm not a fan of this couple, but I am not so biased against them that I cannot admit that they are a phenomenon and are notable as a couple. You say that they aren't, that's fine. We get it. Your opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to not let your personal opinions affect your encyclopedia editing. нмŵוτн τ 19:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My dislike of these two people is irrelevant. I worship Steven Hawking and I adore Sigourney Weaver; but if I discovered that they were having sex, with or without a license and with or without an associated media feeding frenzy, I would not consider that a third, notable topic had been created.

Please explain to this old fool what his opinions obscure. In what way is the "subject" of this article notable? Indeed, explain to me in what way the subject exists as an actual thing -- something to which you might point. That is, if I saw TC and KH strolling down the street, I might well point at them and say, "There go TC and KH." I would not point and say, "There goes a new thing, a thing apart from either of its constituents." Please remove this barrier to my comprehension. — Xiong 熊 talk * 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is what's remarkable about this couple. They have become one entity. It's not "there goes Tom and Katie", it's "there goes "TomKat". It's quite peculiar and unique in the current moment. нмŵוτн τ 16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you, as I believe the British would put it, taking a piss on me? Would you need a chainsaw to separate the two? When you say, ...it's "there goes "TomKat", what really do you mean? What is it? And if "this" is unique -- in this or any moment -- what is meant by List of supercouples? Or is "this" really not unique at all but merely more interesting than the empty lives of readers of supermarket tripe?

Tell me again what these two have achieved of note as a couple. I must have missed that. — Xiong 熊 talk * 07:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It's the narcissism of small differences..." said Benjamin Zimmer, a linguistic anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania.

"They want to have a nickname for the couples because they feel as if they are part of the stars' extended group of family and friends," said Ms. Fuller, who oversees Star magazine.

TomKat ... seems to have become a shorthand joke for their outlandishly public relationship.

"Overexposure makes people react in strange ways," Mr. Zimmer said. "Maybe that's why you create a word that sounds like some kind of mutant four-legged beast."

-- Damien Cave, NY Times — Xiong 熊 talk * 07:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that your feelings for these two stars is irrelevant at all to your feelings concerning this article. But oh well. What is meant by List of supercouples is a list of supercouples. As for TomKat or any supercouple, saving cats from trees and starving children in Africa is not what defines a supercouple. It can make one, sure, but is not some set criteria for being considered one. When you ask what have they (TomKat) done that is notable, I get that that's what you want...some type of act such as that. But to answer your question, no, they aren't like literary supercouple Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir (another notable couple listed in the List of supercouples article). TomKat can only be notable as TomKat, and that happens to be the fascination surrounding them...which does not happen to every celebrity couple that comes along. People take interest in these couples not because their lives are empty (well, some might, not all) but rather because these couples fascinate them so thoroughly, sometimes on a world-wide scale. And thanks for that other source you cited above. It will be a great addition to this article. Perhaps, a criticism section is in order. Flyer22 (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a) In response to Xiong's question, "What have they done?" Well, they took over the media. They've achieved a media fascination that was probably thought to be unachievable.

b) A criticism section would be a wonderful addition. There are tons of people with negative things to say not only them as a couple, but people that are angry that others care about them so much. нмŵוτн τ 17:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you agree that they have done nothing as a unit. You say they are, literally, famous for being famous -- and for nothing else. Non-notable.

WP:BULL. — Xiong 熊 talk * 06:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for possible guesses as to why TomKat's notable, see TomKat#Reasons for popularity. нмŵוτн τ 18:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of which boil down to the incestuous relationship between agents who have stupid clients and media who have stupid readers, neither of which care if there is any substance behind the glitter. It all comes down to a man with a hard-on standing naked in front of a mirror, photographing his erection by the glare of a spotlight, shouting that it is, indeed, very large.

If Cruise and Holmes had, together, jumped up and down on a couch in public, I would not find it notable but at least you would have a slender thread with which to hang yourself. You have produced nothing. — Xiong 熊 talk * 05:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whether or not the people who made them famous are "stupid", they're still famous. There's a lot of stuff that I think is stupid on Wikipedia... but just because it doesn't affect my everyday life does not mean that it isn't notable. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your opinion, and we'll take any tips from you to better this article. Cheers, нмŵוτн τ 16:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of notability, and more will be added over time

I expanded this article in a way that show's their notability as a romantic pairing, and use of the word TomKat. I will continue to expand this article, of course. They, as a couple, have been written about extensively in several books. If notability of the word "TomKat" is more important to people for this article to establish, then I will try to expand on that as well; though I was about expanding on that either way. Flyer22 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Great expansion. Keep up the wonderful work! I'll try to add some more too when I get some time. нмŵוτн τ 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great expansion. And good job on making this article more encyclopedic. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might this be the earliest use of the term TomKat? 29th April 2005.

http://chaddarnell.typepad.com/runchadrun2/2005/04/this_weekend.html Fences and windows (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no date

On the article referenced by the link, there's no date. There really should be one. Tabloid stories like this one come and go every day. --VKokielov (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! but hark!

"So even after Cruise, 44, and Holmes, 27, get married, people will find something else to speculate about, such as whether they will have another child or how they’re getting along, he said."

That means your article is at least as old as July of 2007, for then Tom Cruise got to be 45. I am removing the link. --VKokielov (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, one of those dates is wrong; if Holmes was born in December 1978 and Cruise in July 1962, then the difference between them is 16 years and four months. Twenty-seven plus sixteen is forty-two. Where is the rat? --VKokielov (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid stories? This is a huge newspaper for a city. нмŵוτн τ 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what's the date of that newspaper have to do with that comment? I've reverted this, anyways. To my knowledge, there is no policy/guideline that says sources must not be too old, especially if they're still up to date. нмŵוτн τ 00:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about policy. Look -- if you tell me that people are STILL crazy about it, then you must prove to me that they STILL are. Otherwise I will show you that the Allies are about to cross the English channel to attack the Germans. --VKokielov (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And of course it's a tabloid story. Not your newspaper article, but the whole affair. How would you like me to gaze at you, follow your every fart and fizzle and proclaim them to the world? Not to mention that there are better things to think about than Hollywood actors. All this is my opinion, but it's manifest that none of these Hollywood sensations last very long. Where is Britney Spears? Where are Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt? --VKokielov (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(added afterwards) They come and go in bursts, like the fits of strangeness their subjects undergo. --VKokielov (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to edit without your own point of view affecting it (see WP:NPOV). нмŵוτн τ 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you grab on to that word? D* it, I didn't say that I edited my opinion in. How could I say that, when I asked you to PROVE that these "people all around the world" still remember anything about this? And you still haven't proved it, but instead have hit me with everything you could find to evade proving it. Now, then...please PROVE to me that it is still "notable", in the language of Wikipedia. --VKokielov (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

especially if they're still up to date, you said. Splendid -- now prove that it's up to date. It is on you. --VKokielov (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I got angry. But please anticipate what I am trying to get at, or else tell me that you don't understand. Otherwise it seems like you are calling the wine rotten after tasting the top of it with your fingers. When I say I would like a date, I mean that I'm not sure that the sentence in question -- not the article, mind, but that sentence! -- still has currency. Without currency it is tendentious and ostentatious - "look at me! read me!" --VKokielov (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out the perfect compromise: I put it in past tense. I think this will suffice. Are you happy with this solution? нмŵוτн τ 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because media sensations come and go does not make former media sensations any less relevant or notable, of course (not that I'm stating that anyone on this talk page stated such). And sometimes former media sensations remain just as popular, but just aren't in the media like they once were. As for Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, many people are still crazy about them. But as a couple? That craziness may have died down or rather will die down, but the craziness was still there, as we all know.

At first, seeing this new debate about the above reference, I immediately thought of it like asking to prove that Luke Spencer and Laura Webber still have the highest-rated hour in American soap opera history. I mean, of course they do. I see that it's a little different, however, since a person can get a hold of soap opera ratings and see that their hour is still the highest-rated, and even if they can't, all references all over the internet state such...and until they state otherwise, it's kind of a mute point. With TomKat, on the other hand, having a reference from a year ago stating that people all over the world expectantly follow the couple's actions, may seem a little more like "Do they still?"... But, really, do we think that no one is following this couple's actions anymore? That no people in various countries are following this couple's actions anymore? The number of people following them may have decreased since their much publicity in the news, but suggesting that they aren't followed anymore is a little off. I mean, there are Tomkat fanatics out there. Thus, I really don't see the need for that change in the lead. If they were divorced, then, yeah, I could see how they, as a couple, aren't followed anymore. But this issue seems to be solved now anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compromise. --VKokielov (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 2008-04-19. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Source to use in this article. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I get a good chance to, I'll add that to this article. Or someone can get to doing that before me, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entire piece is unadultered diarrhea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.220.47 (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article's title a joke?

TomKat is not an encyclopedic title for this article! It's like writing an article about Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign and calling it Billary. An article about "TomKat" should be about the way the media coined and uses the term. An article about the relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes should be called something like Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. --Stellis (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title is not encyclopedic, but it is the name they, as a couple, are best known by. I mentioned above that since this article is titled TomKat, it seemingly needs some information about the term and that I would do that. However, I've been busy with other matters. The point, though, is that this article can cover information about the term and the couple. I don't feel that it should be split. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly fitting for such an unencyclopedic article, which reads more like celebrity worship and gossip magazine gushing than anything even remotely informational and neutral. I mean, I know Wikipedia has low, low, loooooooow standards, but this article is pushing it even for that. --70.234.224.171 (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, c'omn, Wikipedia does not have "low, low, loooooooow standards", considering that just about everything on it must be sourced with valid references. I do not see how this article is like a "celebrity worship and gossip magazine"...seeing as it only explains the couple's history and criticism towards the couple, along with a bit of the couple's controversy. It certainly is not worshiping this couple. In any case, I wouldn't be too opposed to the article being renamed Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. Having this article certainly saves from having to duplicte this information in both of their aticles. With the new title, it should also be expanded with more encyclopedic material as well. Hell, it should be expanded with more encuclopedic material either way. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because "Sparks flew between the two during the four-hour meeting" is so totally not something you would see in the pages of any gossip rag. And the only controversies I see are the ones related to Suri. What about all the allegations from Holmes' family that Cruise has worked to cut her off from them? Or the popular belief that she was chosen and brainwashed by Scientology to try and mask Cruise's homosexuality? These are kind of looming issues, and if you're going to have a gossip article, you may as well have the juicy stuff. --70.234.224.171 (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the "sparks flew between the two during the four-hour meeting" part just needs re-wording. As for the controversies, yep, I was talking about Suri. The other controversies are covered in their individual articles. But, really, that "juicy stuff" you mentioned can be presented in an encyclopedic manner; it doesn't make it like the "gossip rags" if that stuff was included in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, "sparks flew" part now taken care of. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw this article name and thought it was a joke, perhaps a move would be a good idea RT | Talk 15:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can this title be a joke, when that is what they are commonly known by as a couple? All a different title would do is get this article readily merged. If this title is a joke, then so is Posh and Becks. The lead clarifies what TomKat means in regards to this topic. Not that it needs clarification in this sense. Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Hi Can we discuss my suggestion of a merge? I can't see anywhere it has been discussed before - can you point me in the right direction Flyer22? I think it should be discussed before we simply remove the tag without a consensus. I am no Wikipedia wizard, but I would like to think my opinion is as important as anyone elses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.87.114 (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your opinion is important. If you look in the archive, you'll see that merging this article has been discussed (under WP:NEO). Such as if we were to, do we choose Tom or Katie's article to put it in? And how it would be redundant to put the same exact information in both articles. Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the merge discussion was eventually dropped. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Where is the archive though? I can't see anything on this discussion page. Is there a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.87.114 (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location of archive

Archive is right at the top. Click on the number 1 right next to where it says Archives. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. And it seems everyone but you wanted this article merged or deleted....why hasn't it happened yet?

LOL. It wasn't just me who did not want this article deleted. There was another editor, of course. And that editor should be brought in on this discussion. And, judging by all of the editors who have either contributed to this article or formatted Cruise and Holmes's individual articles to accommodate this one, it is evident that we are not the only ones who have no problem with this article. That is most likely why it hasn't been merged or deleted yet. Just look at their individual articles that point to this one. Furthermore, I was more for making an argument on why this article can stand alone than for any real passion for keeping it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus

I see that you went ahead and listed this at Proposed mergers, but I must also state that, in either discussion, there was no consensus to merge this article. If anything, in that first discussion, consensus was not to merge, considering that it was me and another editor against one opposer. The second discussion was iffy, but wasn't even a real discussion on deciding whether to merge or not. Those two IPs who popped up to say something about this said something before those discussions took place.

This article should not be merged until there is consensus to do so and until how to merge it is figured out in a good way. Your proposal also suggested it be merged into either article. But that's the thing, though, it shouldn't be in one and not the other, and both being redundant with this information is not good either. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the right place for discussing it, but I agree with the proposal that this article be merged into Tom Cruise. I think it sets a very bad precedent to have a separate article for this relationship, and don't see why we need it at all. Terraxos (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't make sense for this to be merged into the Tom Cruise article and not the Katie Holmes article. I don't see it setting any more of a bad precedent than the Posh and Becks article. It's not as though all celebrity couples will be able to have their own Wikipedia article. Only the ones with notability and where having a separate article specifically about them, given all the topics to cover about their romance makes more sense than being in both of their individual articles or solely one of their individual articles. What's TomKat's notability? Well, the name certianly took off bigger than most celebrity combined names, and there has been significant obsession/mania with them as a pairing. That's not the case for most celebrity couples. I'm not super opposed to a merge, but I don't see the problem in having a separate article about their relationship either. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People all over the world?

The article claims that "people all over the world have expectantly followed the couple’s actions". The evidence for this claim is an Ohio newspaper that mentions a single fan in Turkey. Who cares, anyway? --RichardVeryard (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that "fan" runs a website where he witnesses that. Either way, the citation is valid. It's within Wikipedia guidelines to use. That statement was not added to the lead of this article by me, however. If it is removed, we should expand the lead in some other way. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hartnett Is Biological Father of Suri

Hi Everyone, can you all give feedback on this topic? Many sources are listing actor Josh Hartnett as Suri Cruise's biological father, primarily because Tom Cruise has been unable to father his own children in his three marriages (his previous two kids with actress Nicole Kidman are both adopted. Kidmen went on to have her own biological child when she re-married.)

Katie Holmes, after breaking up with long time boyfriend Chris Klein, went on to date Josh Hartnett shortly before her engagement with Cruise, and the subsequent announcement that Holmes would give birth before she and Cruise were to be married.

It seems like a valid topic to me, but is there a way to include it in the article without getting too tabloid? Thanks! 63.226.210.185 (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of commentary here: TMZ at: http://www.tmz.com/2006/09/07/suri-vs-shiloh-wholl-be-cuter-hotter-have-better-skin/5

Rename

Let's rename the page Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, as it seems to fit better with WP:SUMMARY. Any objections? I think I'll be bold, and move it. If anyone objects, revert and discuss. hmwith τ 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that this may make the Suri information awkward, since it seems more to be about the relationship than the lives together. However, Suri is a result of the relationship, so it still probably fits. hmwith τ 23:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also reworded the intro. Please fix it if it doesn't sound right, but I think it works. hmwith τ 23:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the move was a good idea, for the reasons I've already stated about this. Some editor will eventually come to this article and say that all this information should be in either of their articles or not at all (since they have enough in their individual articles about their relationship; well the Katie Holmes article does), and they will wonder why this couple should have an article devoted strictly to them. At least with the term TomKat, if editors were to say that (like they have done before), a better argument can be made for its term, if the popularity of the term was eventually built on in this article, and this couple's relationship in addition to the term.

Really, I'm starting to believe this article would be better off merged or deleted, since neither of us have expanded it properly and seemingly pop culture-hating editors always target this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like, feel free to undue my move. We'll give it some more time. There's no WP:DEADLINE. If it gets deleted, it gets deleted, but I still feel that it's worthy of an article. hmwith τ 21:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone, somewhere should know that this is a relevant example for a research paper on pop culture. However, given current sources, this article should certainly be deleted. It should not be merged. Biographies made up only of public sources are not accurate. People are not the same in public as they are in private, and regardless of whether or not they are in any particular situation, most information does not get out. Nikurasu (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies made up only of public sources are not accurate? How so? Of course, people are not generally the same in public as they are in private. But we don't get to see most celebrities in private. This is why most biographies on Wikipedia are made up of public sources. And what are "private sources" anyway? Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are almost all PR or what celebrities have been caught doing in public. What do you mean "how so?" It does not include most of their lives, or necessarily even a good portion (though, that can be a problem with biographies anyway. This is just to a greater extreme). It also tends to be largely speculation. That kind of speculation is included in this article. Is Wikipedia a compendium of speculation? Tabloid sources are also notorious for poor reporting. A lot of the sources may simply be sounding boards. In fact, if one had pulled a news article and used that as the only source that may also be questionable. Sometimes news organizations get it wrong too. Anyway, plenty of biographies include both public and private sources. By private, I just mean sources such as people in their lives who actually know them: sources from their private lives rather than their public appearance. I thought that was pretty straightforward. That may be an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. To continue, though, public sources are mentioned with the caveat of being public appearances only. They may even be to some degree important in analyzing someone. If they are all there is, though, that has to be mentioned with its limitations, or perhaps not at all. A biography from all public sources is largely considered inaccurate. Nikurasu (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A biography from all or mostly public sources is not largely considered inaccurate at Wikipedia, considering that most biographies here are mostly or completely made up of public sources. Not all or even most such sources are filed under "tabloid sources." I agree that the sources in this article are not currently the best, but some of this information is well-known or has been stated by Cruise or Holmes themselves, and we cannot have articles mostly made up of statements by their family and friends. Unless those statements are public too, such as statements made to magazines or talk shows, etc. How would a "private source" be considered a WP:Reliable source here at Wikipedia, if the information is not published/public? That is my point. That is what I meant by "How so?" ...I mean, with most biographies here, we are going by what the subjects themselves said; it is not our job to then say, "Oh, maybe they were lying or skewing the truth because they are in the public eye at the moment, and we should rather see what their family and friends have to say about the matter." Flyer22 (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are again misunderstanding my use of "private" and "public." Obviously, "private" sources are ones the public has access to. Perhaps I can use a more clear term. Personal and impersonal sources may be a somewhat more accurate way to put it. I can assure you that virtually no biographies on Wikipedia are made solely of impersonal sources unless they are tabloid fodder (though, in some cases, actual personal sources make it through to the tabloids or other sources). A biography is also not about what Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes has said rather than a holistic picture of their lives. The idea that you could have a biography with only impersonal sources is absurd. That you could have it entirely without impersonal sources or that some insight could not be gleaned from them is also absurd, and not what I was suggesting. Public appearances and statements are also generally considered inaccurate descriptions of people's inner lives, however, because for obvious reasons people put on more positive appearances and hence inaccurate representations of themselves in public. (though, you also have to acknowledge that these public appearances are part of them)

You also can't hide behind Wikipedia policy to say that biographies on Wikipedia should not be that way. There is flexibility present in Wikipedia rules, and requests can be made to modify policy. (Of course, the extent of flexibility or success of a request are largely arbitrary depending on who happens to be present on a certain article or at a certain debate, how effectively they discuss, and what their proclivities are. Wikipedia rules, like rules in general, are mutable and somewhat open to interpretation. As for precedent, it exists to a degree, but only in how policy is changed. Most decisions are not available for easy public viewing, nor would most people go to that depth or consider those decisions justification for a certain action) Ultimately, we have to make a choice: do we mold Wikipedia policy to knowledge, or knowledge to Wikipedia policy? I choose the former, because accuracy is more important than established policy that could be flawed and was only instated to make things accurate in the first place. The fact is, the system was never made to be stagnant, and by implying that it is you are not only committing a principal inaccuracy, but trying to circumvent debate and hold up improving this encyclopedia. What you are doing amounts to nothing more than that.Nikurasu (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not misunderstanding or hiding behind anything. You are the one questioning Wikipedia policy to fit your argument. Wikipedia does not go by your standard at all. I can assure you that virtually no biographies on Wikipedia are made up of mostly or solely "personal sources," as you call them, and for good reason. Ones I have already gone over above. "Personal sources" are fine, but to state that they are generally more accurate than "public sources" is an opinion. I am misunderstanding you? You are misunderstanding me. These are your rules and standards on how Wikipedia should be. And it still makes no sense to me to go by your rules and standards. You defined "private/personal sources" above. I went off your definition. You are the one who said "People are not the same in public as they are in private," as if that is the case for everyone or as though it is Wikipedia's job to ponder/tackle this. You are the one who pretty much stated that we should go by what families or friends state of a celebrity over what that celebrity states of him or herself to a "public source." What family and friends state is more accurate than what the person states themselves? Why? Because that person stated it to a "public source"? If so, that is silliness to me. And it's also your opinion. "Public sources" do not (I REPEAT, "do not," have to be "tabloid fodder sources"). I am not trying to circumvent debate. I am telling you that there is no debate about this on Wikipedia. If a celebrity gives interviews to public sources about their life, we use those sources. We don't say, "No, we need 'private sources.'" Or, "'Private sources' would be preferred." And indeed an article made up of mostly or solely "public sources" can be accurate; we have plenty such examples around Wikipedia. If you want to change how Wikipedia works, then I suggest you take that to the appropriate place. Since accusing me of hiding behind things and trying to circumvent debate is rude, and I don't have much more to state to you on this matter, especially since this article has now been redirected, I am pretty much done here. We should agree to disagree and leave this discussion at that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of Future Celebrity reads like a poorly translated faith tract

Seriously, if I pulled random words from an olde english dictionary it'd likely be more comprehensible than that garbage 74.227.206.79 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. :) hmwith τ 23:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is sourced to that dipshit at the Blade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.185 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note for others reading this section of the talk page. The title Future celebrity has since been removed, and that paragraph has been tweaked. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

How can we fix/correct the tone of this article? Does anyone have any ideas? I do agree that it needs done, but I'm at a brick wall. Feel free to be bold & make any changes! hmwith τ 16:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've removed the section Reasons for popularity, the article seems to blend better and the unencyclopedic tone is not as noticeable. I will go through the article and copyedit the lead, as well as the part about media fascination. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and I changed the heading Media fascination to In the media. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to fix the tone completely. I think removing the article entirely is a better solution, however. I mention how to fix the tone in what I say below. Nikurasu (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suri Cruise (person)

I've recently redirected that page here. I think it was a duplicate of Suri Cruise and the references already mentioned here, but I'd like someone to check on it just to be sure. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good decision. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding of links in the lead

As I stated on Bueller 007's talk page, yeah, I know that that part of the lead I had up there before he "graced it" was not excellent writing, but I was trying to keep the lead from having that messy look of the links being bolded and also trying to keep the original relevant terms/words such supercouple and American (as in identifying the couple as American very near the beginning of the lead). But oh well. I will leave it how he has it for now until I can think of a better way to reword it to where the links are not bolded. The awkward-wording/look of the lead started when the title of the article was changed from TomKat. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a page for this??

Why is there a page for this? Write about something that actually matters! Muppeteer (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the archives for that tired question. Obviously, some people would rather most of the information about this couple be here in this article rather than in both of their articles (though the Katie Holmes article has enough information on this couple about equal to this one). Not only that, but this article could be expanded more with regard to this couple's impact on popular culture. Popular culture topics are very much allowed and rampant on Wikipedia, despite some editors disliking certain kinds. We also have the Posh and Becks article, and (despite my protests because of the bitching about the Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, which was formerly known as the TomKat, article) the Brangelina article. Clearly, these subjects matter to people.

If this talk page section does not go beyond this, I may very well remove it...since it is not helping this article.

Also, remember to sign your user name when "talking" on Wikipedia talk pages. To sign your comments, all you have to do is type four tildes (~~~~) beside them. I went ahead and signed your user name this time. Flyer22 (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section will be more.

If a transitory pop culture phenomenon with minimal implications is notable by Wikipedia standards, then perhaps Wikipedia policy should be re-evaluated? You forget the greater context. The relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes is mostly irrelevant.

This cannot exist as an example of pop culture on Wikipedia. You have to remember scope. If I were writing a research paper on the subject of modern tabloids and pop cultural implications, then I would do an in-depth examination of this and many other examples. It would come to some conclusions about trends in tabloids and pop culture during and leading into this era. A Wikipedia article on pop culture (or a tabloid page linked to by that article) could then cite my research paper, and include a summary of it. That summary may briefly touch upon examples. Of course, the entire paper summary would have to be rather short. There is a range of research on pop culture, tabloids, and other relevant phenomena. This would merely be one paper cited. If the paper I wrote were particularly comprehensive conceptually or had deeply revealing results demonstrated by the specifics, a larger article would be warranted. Such a point about tabloids is rather limited though. There would be no need for an entire article. Compare that to this article, which, if properly revised, is merely examining one specific example of tabloid reporting, and you see just how out of place this article really is. Further, this is not currently an examination of tabloid reporting, but tabloid reporting itself, just in summary form. Nothing said in this article makes the proper connections to pop culture, biography, or tabloids.

There is a possibility that this article would be relevant in a biography of either person or both people. However, this article could not even be merged into such a section. A reporting of tabloid information is not a biography. It only says what went on publicly. Nikurasu (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia's policies and rules, and am not forgetting anything relevant about them. I was only explaining why this article still exists. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

This page is bafflingly devoid of any reference to the very subject that's generally made the couple newsworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.69.226 (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Is this REALLY notable? couldn't the info inside simply be merged into Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes respective pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.70.71 (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP, read the #Why is there a page for this?? discussion above. And the deletion discussion linked at the top of this page. And maybe a bit of the archive. Obviously, whether or not this topic is notable has been addressed before, as well as why the article even exists. Why must this be the article people focus on, when we now have articles like Brangelina? Either being merged will not bother me much (I am no longer as passionate about this article existing as I used to be), but this article still exists to cover most of this couple's history, and to avoid redundancy in both of their individual articles; it is why the Tom Cruise article points here for more about the Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes relationship. Really, since this article exists, the information in the Katie Holmes article about this relationship should be cut down as well. Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Suri

Hello.I'm from Iran and Suri is a girls name here which means "red".The word is also on a day's name we call "Chaharshanbe Suri" which means "The Red Wednesday" (the last wednesday of the year is celebrated in Iran).I edited that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.26.167 (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]