Talk:Katie Holmes/Archive 1

Pictures
I updated the pictures, used some magazine and dvd scans to more recent pictures. Anyone think this would be better than the GQ up top http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Arenakatie.jpg ? AriGold 20:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

...and on the 8th day, God created Katie Holmes.

 * Amen. Now all this article needs is a good picture of her. --Demonslave 18:39, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

-

Is there an official Katie website?
 * Apparently not. I googled the phrases "official site" and "Katie Holmes" as well as checked on IMDB and came up with nothing.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:50, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

-

"In somewhat of an interesting coincidence, ten years earlier, Tom Cruise's wife at the time, Nicole Kidman played the female lead/love interest in the movie Batman Forever opposite Cruise's Top Gun co-star Val Kilmer. In the 2004 movie Batman Begins, the part of the female lead/love interest has been inherited by Katie Holmes." Come again? That has got to be one of the more serpentine "interesting coincidences" I've ever seen, no offense intended to the author.


 * I think it's an interesting coincidence. In Batman Forever, Tom Cruise's wife, with whom he vowed to be with "forever," was the female lead.  In Batman Begins, Tom Cruise's fiance, with whom he had just "begun" a relationship, was the female lead.  The part about Val Kilmer does seem pointless, though.

CoS?
Is there a reason the first external link is to the Church of Scientology? --SPUI (talk) 19:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove it. Cruise is a member, but that's irrelevant to her article.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:15, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Cruise did brainwash her into Scientology. That ought to be a crime. Free Katie! Dr. Cash 04:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Does Katie know about Scientology's evil galactic alien Xenu? People should be free to believe in whatever they want to believe, but I doubt Katie has been told the full story and seen critical websites such as Operation Clambake (www.xenu.net) that suggest that Scientology is a cult.

Stuff about Cruise/Scientology
Now, I'm as down with the whole "Katie Holmes was kidnapped and brainwashed by crazy Scientologists" insinuations as the next man, but the article as it stands seems to be pretty POV in that direction. (Obviously, it doesn't say this directly, but this is clearly the implication, and all of the known facts are pretty blatantly given the most negative characterizations possible) Any thoughts on how to improve this? john k 20:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which is to say - Wikipedia is not a gossip column. john k 20:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but right now I was surprised to see how little info we had on all that: I thought I remembered reading this article before and we had a fair amount of info, but now it's really poor. Everyking 02:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would appear that just about everything was taken out. Obviously some discussion is needed, but we also shouldn't be basically repeating information which has only been disclosed in gossip columns. john k 03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wonder Boys
Anyone else think there is no too much about Wonder Boys here? Additional material seems excessive and bordering on NPOV violations without sourcing. 66.213.119.98 17:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Too much because a small role? Too much because out of balance? What? Before you revert, realize that the earlier description was in error. Hannah has a crush on Grady, not Grady lusting for Hannah as was stated. "Sourcing"? Simply that I have seen Wonder Boys several times and added to that by looking at more than a dozen film reviews. Length was needed to explain the importance of her appearance in a serious film as opposed to her other roles in various thrillers and horror movies, some quite forgettable. I would think her role in Pieces of April needs equal amplification. Pepso 19 August 2005

no to advertisements
Unless there is some overriding cultural or historical signficance, I object to using advertisements as images; this is essentially free advertising for large, wealthy multinational corporations like the Gap. If her fans want to add more pictures to this article, why don't the find screenshots from her movies? -- Viajero | Talk 18:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if we did that, then people will object. Some folks don't believe screen shots are acceptable.  PedanticallySpeaking 19:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal life sources
When I wrote the body of this article, I tried to give printed citations to my sources. The personal life section has been greatly expanded since then. The citations are to web-pages. I'd appreciate if future contributors would cite printed works. I will examine these web-cites and see if I can come up with printed ones; though I would be much obliged to those who added them if they would help. PedanticallySpeaking 19:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to restrict sources to printed material. Just because something is printed doesn't necessarily make it any more reliable than material appearing on a web site.  That said, we absolutely should drop information cited only from web sites that are not considered credible.  Fan sites, gossip sites, etc. etc. etc.  --Yamla 19:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we can't use web sources. My objection is that we're citing web-sites of magazines, e.g. People and Entertainment Weekly.  I'd like to see the citation to the actual printed article included.  Once information is in print, we should cite that over the web.  PedanticallySpeaking 17:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use images
Are magazine covers no longer considered fair use? Maver1ck 08:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Magazine covers are fair use provided you are discussing the magazine or you are making critical comment (not necessarily criticising) the fact that Ms. Holmes appeared on the magazine. For example, it would be entirely legit to post the naked-and-pregnant Demi Moore cover if the resulting (small) scandal was discussed in the article itself.  But it would not be legitimate to post a magazine cover with Ms. Holmes just as an example of a picture of her.  That, at least, is how I read copyright law, fair use, and Wikipedia policies.  It's all a little confusing.  --Yamla 16:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you're confused about fair use, then you're on the right track. The factors for figuring out fair use in court cases has been referred by a top legal scholar (Judge Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit) as "fuzzball factors."

Legal Name
Katie's legal name is Kate Noelle Holmes according to both and.


 * These sites have the same biography, so at best they count as a single source of information. A google search on "Katherine Noelle Holmes" (exact match) returns 19,900 hits.  "Kate Noelle Holmes" returns 313.  imdb has her birth name as Katherine.  Furthermore, I suspect the whole "Kate" thing is part of Mr. Cruise's revamping of her image.  However, I'd like to get some more comments or, ideally, some better sources, prior to reverting back to "Katherine".  --Yamla 03:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The whole reason I changed the name is because I saw a recent interview in which Katie was asked if, when older, she would go by Katherine and she replied that her legal name was Kate and that is what her parents called her. I'll try to dig up the source. -- Kevin Clark


 * Her legal name may (now) be Kate, but what we care about is her birth name. We'd generally give her birth name, then the name she is most commonly known as.  This is still Katie rather than Kate, however, but I suppose we could add a bit stating that she now prefers to be known as Kate rather than Katie.  --Yamla 18:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles in Current Biography and Biography magazine both give her full name as "Kate Noelle Holmes". PedanticallySpeaking 18:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Given this additional source, I'm going to change the page to Kate. --Kevin Clark 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

After the marriage, she will be known as Kate Cruise both professionally and personally. Chantessy 16:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, The Superficial is hardly a reliable source. Additionally, Tom Cruise's last name is not Cruise.  It seems strange that Ms. Holmes would adopt Cruise's middle name for her personal last name.  --Yamla 17:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

FAC?
Does anything think this could be a featured article? It failed once before and many changes have been made since then. 66.213.119.98 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Katie isn't really cute?
Does anyone think that Katie has Italic textthose Bold texteyes? If we see Dawson's Creek first season...those eyes make us feel her character's pain, her wish of living.


 * And the relevance of this to an encyclopedia would be...? DJ Clayworth 15:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Virginity claim
Is there an actual quote from Holmes where she said she would remain a virgin til marriage? The MSNBC article quotes a tabloid as proof, but has no quotes from Holmes herself. Crumbsucker 14:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I put a quote, cited, from the Mail on Sunday. The MSNBC piece named the wrong newspaper entirely.  PedanticallySpeaking 21:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not my question. My question was is there a quote from Holmes herself. I have never seen one. Also, Mail on Sunday or Sunday Mirror, doesn't matter. They are both tabloids. BTW, in your reworked article, you removed most of the links to cited sources, which makes it harder to check sources for accuracy. Crumbsucker 22:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The links I removed were to sites such as "E! Online", print sources being preferrable to electronic ones. PedanticallySpeaking 19:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * haha, an actress being virgin till marriage. good one.
 * I thought both Holmes and Chris Klein were virgins while they were together? - 03:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Her acting
Gee, this article isn't very nice on her, is it? When it comes to her last few roles, anyway. I'm sure we can include a positive review in there, somewhere? Because putting in a quote that basically singles her out as the worst thing in "Thank you for Smoking" is kind of POV in one direction. JackO&#39;Lantern 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If I said she was the worst thing in a film, that would be POV.  But citing one of the few published reviews of the film to that effect, is not POV.  In general, she has gotten bad reviews for her films and to try to balance every negative one with a positive one would be misleading to readers.  PedanticallySpeaking 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Over-referencing
This disucssion copied from Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

The number of references in articles which are making it through FAC has been rising, seemingly inexorably, for some time now. I often object to articles with more than about 40 references because I think it's almost always unnecessary to cite so many sources, and very distracting for readers to see so many footnotes in the text. In every case I object to, people are citing things which really don't need citing, like uncontroversial facts and things which are just common knowledge, and they commonly respond to my objections by saying they're only following guidelines here. So, I think it's time to include guidelines on when citations aren't necessary, and possibly a guideline on how many citations are likely to be appropriate for articles of a given length. What does anyone think? Worldtraveller 17:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that over-referencing is a valid concern, but very few articles reach a problematic level. There's no need to cite thing that are common knowledge; but I think it's desireable to cite facts&mdash;even uncontroversial ones&mdash;if they are obscure or difficult to find.  This tends to be the case for many FAs on historical subjects. —Kirill Lok s hin 17:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so what would you say would be a problematic level? If we aren't reaching it now it looks like we inevitably will reach it at some point.  I really agree with what you say, but I believe we've reached a situation of over-referencing if an article on a minor actress has 89 references.  An article on World War I or the British Empire or something like that, I could understand needing this number of references... Worldtraveller 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Err, that one would probably qualify as problematic. I suspect that both the overabundance of footnotes and the length of the article (56K!) are caused by the inclusion of too much trivia. —Kirill Lok s hin 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Footnotes at the bottom of the page in no way destract from the reader. They're in a separate section, anybody can ignore.   We need to cite more than a typical publication, because an uncited claim in Wikipedia has the reliablility of a UseNet posting.  Also, if something truly is known by everybody, and needs no citation, than why are we writing about it?  Why are we telling people things, that everybody already knows?  Generally, we should write about things not already known by everybody, and those things need citations.  Remember, the very readers who are learning about something from the article, are also our "fact checkers" and editors.  It is absolutely essential fact-checking be done by non-experts.  There simply aren't enough experts to catch maliscious sneaky vandals, as soon as they slip rubbish in.  Other publications don't need so many citations, because they don't let just anybody write the origianl version, or fact-check it later.  I suggest thanking people for "over-citing".  Now occassionally there is true over-citing.  Sometimes a citation is used for a fact already well supported by other sources, or if the fact was removed from the article (but the citation was not).  But rarely, is there true over-citing.  Quite the opposite. --Rob 17:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well said, top to bottom. Very good points. - Taxman Talk 23:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's these: [1] all over articles which I am saying are distracting, not the footnotes section. Look at the first few paras of Katie Holmes and tell if you don't think that's messy looking.  And we should certainly be telling people things they already know, as well as things they don't - otherwise we wouldn't be comprehensive.  I find for the scientific topics I write about, 20 references is about the most I feel the need to include, and no-one's yet complained they're under-referenced, so when I see minor actresses with 89 listed references I think that's excessive. Worldtraveller 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First Katie Holmes is not a "minor actress"!. And yes, I know what you were referrring to.  No, those are *not* distracting at all.  I think Harvard(?) inline references can be distracting, like "(Smith et al, 1986, p. 3)".  But "[1]" after ever sentence is perfectly fine.  Katie Holmes has a little maintainability problem, because its useing the ref/label (which can get out-of-sync) instead of the new  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 pounds, use 000 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000&amp;nbsp;pounds.[?]
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: wouldn't, Don't, Don't, Don't, Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * In quotes, title of movie. --Malkinann (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Needs update
The lead section mentions nothing of Holmes's life post-2006, and reception for her work after 2006 is similarly spotty. There are also fact tags that have been in the article since October last year. Citation "Graham, "What Katie Did."" isn't enough to verify the information cited to it. Neither is citation 25 - which in the article simply appears as "Cohen", with a hidden comment after it. There seem to have been citation issues in the article for some time - see the hidden comment as follows: "writers of both sexes commenting how Holmes was the sort of girl one wants to bring home to meet the parents and to marry. "  As this is currently a featured article, it may go to WP:FAR if these problems can't be fixed. --Malkinann (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Katie_Holmes/Archive_1. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've restored the bibliography. --Malkinann (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Note

 * Prose is very choppy. "Film" section has a lot of sections beginning with "in" and a lot of one-sentence paragraphs.
 * "Other Work" is also proselined. "In x, she did y. In Z, she did a."
 * As mentioned on the talk page, the article is still pretty much truncated at 2006, with only fleeting coverage of her since then.
 * Several malformatted references that have [1] and [2] in the text.
 * Several dead links.
 * Further Reading section is way too long. Most of those aren't referenced within the text.
 * Intro is too short.

My main concern here is that the article hasn't been maintained since 2006, and as a result, very little info on post-2006 has been added.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bringing the two above threads back from the archives. The points still need to be addressed. A FAR will happen very soon otherwise. Brad (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm new so I don't know how to fix it, but there is a misspelled word in this article. In the last sentence under "Relationships and Personal Life", allegedly is misspelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicsnickerdoodles (talk • contribs) 18:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Still a Scientologist?
TMZ (which is considered a reliable source) reports that Scientology is one of the main reasons behind the divorce, as does the Village Voice, and the Slate (which also notes that back in 2009, she hadn't been seen entering a Scientologist facility in over five months and had entered her daughter into a Catholic pre-school). If Katie Holmes doesn't want her daughter raised in Scientology, but does want her to be educated Catholic (as her mother has claimed, along with claiming that Holmes isn't convinced about the CoS after all), that kinda makes it hard to believe that she's still a Scientologist. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not allowed to draw your own conclusions from sources. It is considered original research. Since there are plenty of sources stating that she is indeed a Scientologist, you will need a source that explicitly states that she is not anymore. Nymf hideliho! 18:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * TMZ outright states "Katie Holmes filed for divorce primarily over Tom Cruise's fierce ties to Scientology, fearing that Tom would drag Suri deep into the church," "Katie has never been fully committed to Scientology," and "she does not want Tom to control decisions relating to religion." That's not original research.  The Dailymail.co.uk source I shared reports her mother said "She is not convinced by Scientology and has told Tom that she wants Suri to be educated as a Catholic – as she was."  That's not original research either.  Do you have a source than the TMZ story showing her to currently be a devout Scientologist?  That she was excited about it when she first started dating Tom Cruise over a half decade ago does not mean she is now.  In the face of sources indicating that she is not a Scientologist we either need current sources showing that she is still into the religion, or we need to remove that category.  It's not original research.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of those quotes says that she is not a Scientologist, it just says that she is not as devout as Tom Cruise. It is still original research. Nymf hideliho! 21:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How are you getting "still a Scientologist, just not as devout" from her:
 * 1) not participating in the religion
 * 2) refusing to let her daughter be raised as a Scientologist
 * 3) attempting to keep her children away from Scientologists
 * 4) raising her daughter to be Catholic
 * ...? I will admit that it would be original research to put the "American Christians" or "American Catholics" category, but I would still like to see a current source describing her still being a Scientologist.  Scientology is not a religion you can become inactive in but still remain a full member.  She's worried she's being stalked (and probably rightfully so) by Scientologists who now consider her a suppressive person.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, Katie is not a scientologist at all, as she has not publicly claimed that religion. (participating in services and ceremonies is not publicly claiming). Please see wp:blpcat. That said, the same policy would prohibit us from claiming she had left Scientology, without her own personal public explicit acknowledgement. Religion is basically off limits under blpcat except under fairly narrow constraints which have not been met in this case, unless someone can come up with significant sourcing of holmes personally claiming one religion or another. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

New work
Please add the sentence "Holmes & Yang will present their fashion line at New York Fashion Week for the first time in September 2012." after the mention of Holmes & Yang in the Other work section. The source is http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2012/07/06/katie-holmes-fashion-week/

Please also add "Holmes has been in a film adaptation of Anton Checkov's The Seagull"- source http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118053334 and "Holmes has co-written and is co-producing a film called "Molly"" - source http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20610217,00.html to the 2010s career section.

Both Variety and People magazine are already used as sources in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.231.222 (talk • contribs)
 * ❌ Lots of time between now and Sept. to create an account and do it yourself.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Catholicism
I am now at 3RR on the Catholicism inclusion, which I believe is not sufficiently in compliance with WP:BLP for inclusion. I have made notice to the BLP noticeboard asking for clarification and assistance in this matter.

Huffpost quoting an anonymous parisner is not sufficient sourcing for claiming "[...] has officially rejoined the Catholic Church". At most it would be sourcing for "An anonymous parishner has claimed that Katie attended a service at..." etc.

Categories of Scientology and Catholicism are clear violations of WP:BLPCAT

Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Gaijin42 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 July 2012
Please edit; undocumented unofficial non-verified; NYPost is a tabloid trash; article alleges hearsay. In addition, legal documents show the two divorcing are "respectful of each others beliefs"; Non-Wikipedia verification of gossip; "Following the announcement, those close to Holmes stated...[102]"

71.53.191.241 (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the IP has focused a great deal on articles relating to Tom Cruise (who is playing Jack Reacher). The Geolocate places the IP address within rather close proximity to a Scientology center, much much closer than Geolocate places my IP to my home address.  It's not conclusive, but based on the IP's behavior I'm having a hard time not believing this is a clean up crew from the CoS.  Considering this, and Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology, I'm inclined to ignore this request. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To the requesting editor, please rephrase your request in accordance with the guidelines in the request template above, i.e., "please change X to Y", so that we may objectively assess viability. Thanks. Best regards,  Cindy  ( talk to me ) 07:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ After that many edits the IP should have an account, stop asking for POV edits and fight the battle themselves.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Canoe1967, it appears the IP has taken your advice. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to clear the request backlog. Is there a way to put a polite comment on IP talk pages after they add an edit request template? That may get us some more editors. I don't think I should be involved in the wording though or it may turn out worse than above. I just cleared over 20 of them and left similar comments.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not very encyclopedic
Sections of this article read like they have been directly lifted from publicity material or some fan-site. The third para of the Dawson's Creek section is particularly gushing - "The 5 ft 9 in (1.75 m) tall brunette enchanted the press, writers of both sexes commenting...". Would someone pls write this properly so that it seems like it belongs here rather than some tabloid magazine? Also, do we have a ref that the comment about her being the Audrey Hepburn of her generation is a "typical" comment, because that reads like OR, or at least synthesis, to me. Thanks. 124.169.172.237 (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Scientology
Considering that Katie Holmes has never publicly referred to herself as a Scientologist, and no verifiable data exists on what, if anything, she did in Scientology during her marriage to Tom Cruise, and considering the BLP issues others have made in regards to those who are, in fact, established and acknowledged Scientologists, I'm afraid there is nothing here to justify her being included in the categories for "Former Scientologists" or the quite absurd "Converts to Scientology from Roman Catholicism", which ignores the fact that there is no "conversion" process in Scientology to begin with. Please let us maintain some semblance of respect for BLP here and stick to the facts, and the fact is Katie Holmes does not appear to have ever referred to herself as a Scientologist or advocated for Scientology. Laval (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Suri
In April 2006, Holmes gave birth to her first child, a daughter named Suri (Persian: سوری). Is there any source that سوری is indeed Persian for Suri? When I googled سوری I could find nothing about Suri Cruise and a google image search just showed pics of women jumping over fire,or people being around a fire. Can some one actually cite that سوری really means Suri, and if so what is the definition of Suri? --98.87.171.203 (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Google translate doesn't give a transliteration, but the translation comes back as "Syrian", with an alternate of "red rose". The latter agrees with the statement according to the Los Angeles Times. But I don't see why we need the Persian word in the article, especially since there is no equivalent Hebrew rendering (or even explanation) of "a word with origins in both Persian and Hebrew", and technically it's not supported by reliable sources. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The claim of Hebrew origin/roots of the name ought to be removed. Just because some publicist with no knowledge claimed so (and that is the "reference") does not mean it should be asserted in Wikipedia. The older article had a much longer explanation showing Hebrew linguists scoffing a the idea. That appears to have been shortened in the current article. As the article currently stands it has Wikipedia erroneously asserting Hebrew origins108.18.73.162 (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Suri's Instagram account (crossing t's prior to 3RR)
Please stop adding the link to Suri's Instagram account. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Meters (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Should the lead mention Tom Cruise?
Part of me says "No, the lead should just refer to Katie Holmes." But what makes me think "yes" is thinking back to the crazy amount of media attention that their coupling received OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Katie Holmes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050420065308/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000641292 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000641292
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110418011406/http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com:80/beauty/mature-women-named-%E2%80%98most-beautiful%E2%80%99-in-2011-list-blog-64-yahoo-lifestyles.html to http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/beauty/mature-women-named-‘most-beautiful’-in-2011-list-blog-64-yahoo-lifestyles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect about Katie's length of being a Scientologist.
The article implies that Katie only began to "study" Scientology when she began dating Tom Cruise but this is a false statement. It is a commonly known fact, stated by a number of Scientology executives, not to mention in articles published far and wide about her divorce from Tom that she was a member of Scientology for over 20 years before she even met Tom. In fact, the church introduced her to Tom. I am in the middle of something so I don't have time to fix it, but anyone can Google this information. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Scientology officials are the least reliable source for that information. They still list people as 'members' based on them having entered a Scientology center, one time, decades ago, to give the impression that they have a much higher number of active members than they actually have. Multiple sources have confirmed the church officials engage in this behavior, including former high-ranking church officials, like Marty Rathburn.
 * Also, that math doesn't add up. Holmes was 27 when she started dating Cruise. If you are correct, it would mean she started studying Scientology before she was 7 years old. So she was studying Scientology when she was in grade school, while being raised in an actively Roman Catholic family? Or let's say that right now, while she's 38, that you claimed she's been studying Scientology for over 20 years - so she was studying it when she was a teenager attending a Catholic high-school like Notre Dame Academy? That would be pretty far fetched.
 * I did several searches, and I can't even find tabloids claiming that Holmes was a member of Scientology (active or inactive) before she started dating Cruise, much less any articles that qualify as valid citations for Wikipedia. I don't know why you think it's a "commonly known fact," but I can find no evidence to support that assertion. It's not even something I've heard anyone claim before, and I frequent many communities centered on discussions of the CoS. Maybe it's a 'fact' claimed by some church-publications, but that wouldn't remotely qualify as a reliable source from the perspective of Wikipedia - especially considering the tumultuous history Wikipedia has with the church. I have yet to find one article, about their marriage or their divorce, claiming that Holmes studied Scientology for decades before meeting Cruise. So the only way you could make that change to this article would be if you found very reliable sources contradicting the already established fact, that she was raised a devout Catholic and didn't join the CoS until she met Cruise. CleverTitania (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katie Holmes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080123083601/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009769069 to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009769069

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Katie Holmes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123082125/http://katieholmespictures.com/news/headlines/1091.shtml to http://katieholmespictures.com/news/headlines/1091.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501095915/http://news-briefs.ew.com/2011/04/27/star-magazine-katie-holmes/ to http://news-briefs.ew.com/2011/04/27/star-magazine-katie-holmes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)