Talk:Tom Cruise/Archive 3

Friendships with felon Mrsic
Swedish Newspaper Aftonbladet links Tom Cruise as a close friend of convicted felon Dragomir |Dragomir Mrsic http://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/klick/article15923745.ab who did 3.5 in jail for armed robbery.


 * AftonBladet is a reliable source, but this is not any sort of scandal or notable incident requiring addition to the article. If there is some scandal that later develops, or issue to one of their careers as a result, then that would be an issue for that time. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
- could somebody remove this OR edit? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 February 2013: dead link repair and article title correction
I happened to notice that there was a dead link in the References section associated with a Time magazine article entitled "Being Tom Cruise" (currently the fifth one on the list). I decided to see if it could be repaired, suspecting that the web page had simply moved to a different address on Time magazine's servers. This indeed turned out to be the case, with the URL of the article now at this location. I know that is the correct article because the old URL, www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2002/0701/cruise/story2.html, indicates within the URL name itself (after "/magazine") that the article was published in the July 1, 2002 issue, which is the very same issue I have linked to above. Furthermore, on the third page of the article the information that was cited (that Tom Cruise's father died in 1984) is given.

After I found the page's new URL, I also noticed that the name of the article is incorrect. The actual name of the article is "About Tom," not "Being Tom Cruise." I believe this was a mistake that was the result of erroneously thinking that the headline on the magazine's cover, which reads "Being Tom," and the name of the cover story were identical, and then mixing that up with the title of the mockumentary Being Tom Cruise.

Please make those two corrections. Thank you!

—Wthrman (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rivertorch (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on behalf of new editor
A bit of background: is a new editor who is yet to be autoconfirmed. Being incapable of adding the content he wants to this page, he requested I do it for him. However, because he is unconfirmed, I still feel it would be best for this edit to gain consensus. He wants this:

Cruise has starred in many Hollywood blockbusters, including Rain Man (1988), A Few Good Men (1992), Jerry Maguire (1996), Vanilla Sky (2001), Minority Report (2002), The Last Samurai (2003), Collateral (2004), War of the Worlds (2005), Tropic Thunder (2008) and Jack Reacher (2012). As of 2012, Cruise is Hollywood's highest-paid actor.

to be changed to this:

Cruise has starred in many Hollywood blockbusters that grossed in excess of $200 million worldwide, including Top Gun (1986), Rain Man (1988), A Few Good Men (1992), The Firm (1993), Interview with the Vampire (1994), Jerry Maguire (1996), Vanilla Sky (2001), Minority Report (2002), Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002), The Last Samurai (2003), Collateral (2004), War of the Worlds (2005), Valkyrie (2008), Knight & Day (2010), Jack Reacher (2012) and the Mission: Impossible film series (each of the four films grossed over $200 million worldwide). As of 2012, Cruise is Hollywood's highest-paid actor. Nineteen films that Cruise has starred in have crossed $200 million worldwide, a feat achieved by no other actor.

CtP (t • c) 04:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Surfsbruce has been blocked as a sockpuppet. See Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000. 72Dino (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Since he has been blocked as a sockpuppet, we will not accept his edit request. Camyoung54   talk  14:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies for bothering anyone with this; I was unaware he was a sockpuppet. CtP  (t • c) 15:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Cruise's Irish genealogy
Tom Cruise is in Dublin today. In this morning's Irish Times there's a detailed account of his Irish origins, which is as impressive as it is extensive. Tom Cruise revels in 'extraordinary' depth of his Irishness. 89.101.41.216 (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

New Role?
Couldn't Cruise do a biographical movie of L. Ron Hubbard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.16 (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tom Cruise's pilot's license
Why is nothing mentioned in the article about Tom's pilot's license, which, according to Forbes he has held since 1994? It's his widely known hobby, and he has from three to five jets. Could you, please, check this up and add the information, because it IS important - it shows Tom Cruise as a personality not just an actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.32.109.230 (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think it's noteworthy, please propose an addition to the article (i.e., the actual wording you'd like to see) and provide reliable sources. Rivertorch (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition to relationships section
Hello,

I suggest an addition to the relationships section of Tom Cruise's page...

He was rumored soon after his divorce to Katie Holmes to have been in a relationship with Cameron Diaz (his co-star in the 2001 movie "Vanilla Sky" and the 2010 film "Knight and Day") - but Mr. Cruise's acting industry 'Rep' stated to "E!news" in September of 2012, regarding this rumor, "It's false. They are friends." Cameron Diaz herself told U.K. talk show presenter Graham Norton (regarding a photo with Cruise on her 40th birthday), “I happened to bump into Penelope Cruz, Javier (Bardem), Tom and his son in a hotel and joined them for dinner. At midnight I said, ‘I’m 40′ so we took pictures and then said ‘Goodnight, see you later, blah, blah, blah’ and I haven’t seen him since. But the next thing I know, apparently I am dating him and it’s full on and he is coming after me.” Diaz and Cruise appeared together on the 25 July, 2010, episode of "Top Gear", though this was likely just a promotional appearance for the film "Knight and Day".

http://www.eonline.com/news/349565/crazy-rumor-of-the-day-debunked-tom-cruise-and-cameron-diaz-definitely-not-dating

http://wonderwall.msn.com/movies/gossip-romance-rumor-du-jour-is-tom-cruise-wooing-cameron-diaz-21932.gallery

http://blog.chron.com/celebritybuzz/2012/11/are-cameron-diaz-tom-cruise-dating/

71.207.226.139 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC) KO - July-29-2013
 * Flash in a pan rumors that went nowhere of people saying they are not dating does not seem sufficiently encyclopedic in the long term view to me... Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Rumors can occasionally be noteworthy, but this one doesn't seem to be. Rivertorch (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLP, rumors are not to be given any weight unless they are very widely cited and even then, within reason. Laval (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

When did Tom Cruise begin Scientology?
The article currently states, based on a rather inaccurate BBC article, that Cruise was introduced to Scientology in 1990. This is incorrect, as shown at this link: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/celeb.txt, which lists several sources indicating 1986 and 1987. Cruise himself has stated in an interview with People that he took his first course in 1986. He is listed in church publications that he completed the Student Hat course in 1989. Given the variety of years given, we should probably avoid stating an exact year, or simply give a general statement that he began Scientology services in the mid-to-late 1980s. Thoughts? Laval (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That source is itself unreliable, but the sources it points to may be reliable, but they would need to be cited directly to be useful. However, I do not object to making our statement more general in light of the ambiguity. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions? Based on the wide variety of sources, 1990 would appear to be completely false & inaccurate. If someone is willing to jump in & wade through all the sources to come up with something more reliable, that would be preferable. I would say that any source directly quoting Cruise should be sufficient enough. Laval (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A quote from Cruise is sufficient, if the source is reliable. Otherwise we are not assured that the quote is accurate. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Scientology charities
Fat&Happy apparently has a problem with my addition of "social betterment programs" to the article, calling this POV. Well, what did you have in mind? Call them "charities" instead? Philanthropic organizations? Cruise refers to these church charities as "social betterment programs" which is what the church calls them. Critics call them "front groups" -- that's not POV? How about WP:BLP? I'd love to hear what alternative description the editor would prefer that would be more NPOV than "social betterment programs". Calling them scams, front groups, money laundering schemes, scams, etc doesn't count. Laval (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Before threatening another editor to be cautious lest they be hauled before ArbCom, as he did on my talk page, Laval needs to consider that such a sword cuts both ways. If an existing discussion as to when Cruise adopted Scientology means that a reversion of a clearly POV descriptive needs to be discussed before being done, then certainly the addition of the descriptive should have similarly pre-cleared – which it was not.


 * Alternatives? How about simply "social programs", or, as used in the lead, "affiliated social programs". Cruise and the Church describe them as "social betterment programs"? Well, good for them. By Laval's own admission above, this term is not one that is universally accepted. If you want to use their terminology, then attribute it to the source – "what he calls their social betterment programs" or "what they call their social betterment programs". Personally, I think neutrality is better preserved by following the lead of the lead and eliminating the laudatory adjective entirely than using it in a qualified manner. And since nobody but Laval has suggested any of the possible derogatory terminology, that is probably best ignored as the red herring it is. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup. "Affiliated social programs" seems neutral enough, but simply "affiliated programs" might be even better. "Social betterment programs" is not neutral. Rivertorch (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Religion in infobox
Why is Tom Cruise allowed "Religion" in his info box? I think his Wiki page is actually the first actor/actress page I've seen where Religion is even mentioned. Just because he is very outspoken about his following is not a reason to put it in his info box. Even Mimi Rogers does not have it, and she introduced him to it!

It doesn't seem fair, and I have removed for fairness and to stay with standards. I'm not even debating the fact that Scientology is not recognized as a religion in many parts of the world. Let's give some examples to support my point. Robia Lamorte is a actress turned born-again Christian preacher (for lack of a better word). Her main career is now religion-based, but her religion is not put in the info box. Lil Wayne has proclaimed several times, during award shows and interviews, that he believes in God, but his religion is not stated in his info box. Ben Stiller has stated he is a non-practising Jew, but secular Jew is not stated as his religion in his info box. Woody Allen has stated he is an atheist, but that does not appear as his religion in his info box. I could go on and on with endless number of examples, but I think my point is made. There are standards to Wikipedia. Tom Cruise's main occupation is an actor, not a religious figure. Nitroblu (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point. I would tend however to take the view that Scientology is a cult, rather than a religion. any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.58.191 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing unfair or non-standard in stating the subject's religion in his infobox. Tom Cruise's Scientology is very relevant to his personal and public life. He, and other adherants of it consider it to be a religion, as do some countries. Mimi Rogers should have Scientologist added to her infobox, as well as a recent reference stating that she is still an adherant, providing that is the case. LaMorte's infobox has far too little information in it. Lil Wayne's infobox cannot have his religion in it as it does not have a parameter for it. 'Secular Jew' isn't a religion; Stiller is culturally and ethnically Jewish, but does not appear to follow Judaism, so he does not have a religion. Woody Allen should have atheist added to his infobox. Religion has only been available as a parameter for infoboxes of actors since October. Many editors are unaware of the parameter's existence, and many articles have not yet had their religion entered in the box. In many other cases either the subject does not have a religion or it is not reported by reliable sources. Jim Michael (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Martial Arts
I read that Tom Cruise knows Taekwondo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.241.172 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

In Mission Impossible 3 and Jack Reacher he has used Keysi Fighting Method disciplines on his own, so he could be a real life practitioner of KFM.

How tall?
Shouldn't this be information given in the article? It is, after all, a subject of fan interest and what is more important for a movie star than fan interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.160.2 (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced Material
In the scientology section, it's mentioned that youtube reinstated the video because it was found to be fair use but this is not in the citation found; please edit as appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD92:36B0:802B:EBF0:C09B:F776 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Oprah
I really don't think we need a whole section on his appearance on Oprah. One mention is enough, no matter how big an impression it made on the blogosphere back in the day. --John (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * John, regarding your removal, I disagree since that incident did make such a big impact. What you removed (though, obviously, some of it can be cut) could fit in the Popularity section of the article or in a Media section if someone were to create one for the article. But, unless I at some point show an interest in expanding on this material myself, I'll leave including or excluding this material to others. Flyer22 (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Louisville connections
In the Early life section, there's no mention of Tom Cruise's connections to Louisville, Kentucky. According to a reference already used in the article:
 * Both his parents came from generations of Louisvillians. Tom Cruise was born in Syracuse after his parents had moved there from Louisville for his father's job.
 * When Cruise's mother moved herself and the children back to the U.S., they moved back to her hometown of Louisville.
 * Cruise lived three of his formative years (1974-78) in Louisville (a period of four years subtracting a year at a seminary in Cincinnati). Cruise attended St. Raphael School through the 8th grade.
 * His father and his cousin William Mapother attended and graduated from St. Xavier High School in Louisville, and Cruise also attended this school briefly before another family move.

Given the apparent sensitive nature of the article (with the warning above), I decided not to make any edits to fit this in, but I just wanted to bring it to the attention of other editors with more experience working on this article. Note also that this article is included in WikiProject Louisville because of Tom Cruise's family connections and his time spent in the city. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2014
Collateral is not listed as one of his movies?

Collateral is not listed as one of his movies?

65.175.137.204 (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * sure seems to be. Cannolis (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Legend!
Need to add movie credit: Legend 1985 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.138.205 (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Height
It's been requested several times before in the archive that the article should mention his height somehow. AFAIK, it's also a pretty big topic in tabloids or the media in general when it comes to Cruise. I suppose we could handle it similarly to his ligitation when he sued people over calling him gay. For instance, we could refer to recurring reports suggesting that Cruise usually has explicit terms in his acting contracts forbidding his being, uh, "vertically challenged" being shown visibly on-camera, and mandating to conceal it instead such as by only casting people shorter than him, or not showing his feet so he can stand on a small pedestal or whatever to appear taller next to the other people in the shot. --84.180.255.151 (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a reasonable approach. Since Cruise is a celebrity actor, these subjects are relevant and of interest. 166.137.118.113 (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015
The last person to edit this page obviously changed details of the page to be profane, crude, and potentially libelous. They changed actor Tom Cruise's name to "Tom Cruise Has Herpes" and "Thomas Cruise CumIV". And then apparently made it so further edits weren't allowed. The one who stated such things should be permanently suspended/banned.

Memaha512 (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

✔️ This has already been fixed, and the user already been given a final warning. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Scientology in the lede
My edit adding 'Scientologist' to the top of the lede was removed. There is nothing in the lede about him being a Scientologist. It should be there. Aside from being an actor, that is what he is most known for. There are countless reputable sources detailing this including a large section in this article. Handpolk (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've added two sentences in the lede to that effect.  ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Handpolk, I don't know if you forgot, but of course there is nothing in the lead when you removed it. Duh... I still disagree that it should be in the opening sentence, though, and you should not be edit warring to keep it in without a consensus. As for your comment here here, remember that there is no deadline at Wikipedia. Nymf (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree it belongs in the lead, but not the first sentence. It's a key part of Cruise's biography, but it doesn't make much sense to make it look like an occupation. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree it should be in the lead, it wouldn't be right to list it along with his occupations. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Date must be wrong
It says in the scientology section that Cruise became involved through his wife Mimi Rogers in 1990, but that can't be right, because the Mimi Rogers pages says they were divorced by then so it must have been earlier. "On May 9, 1987, Rogers married actor Tom Cruise. They separated in 1989; their divorce was finalized in February 1990." Walterego (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you find a source and correct it? Handpolk (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Steven, not Stephen
Can someone please correct the spelling of Steven Spielberg's name? It is not Stephen. 128.177.161.145 (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Handpolk (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Pilot
Might it be appropriate to mention to document that Cruise is a pilot? I was utterly surprised to come across a YouTube video where he was readily given control of a Redbull helicopter. Upon further investigation, it seems he even owns multiple aircraft, including a P-51. John Travolta's airworthiness is discussed in significant detail on Travolta's page, and of course the two are connected in... various ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.55.215 (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Name
The article refers to Cruise as having been 'born Thomas Cruise Mapother IV', implying this is no longer his name. Is there any evidence to suggest he has actually changed his name to 'Tom Cruise', rather than this being his stage name? If not, it would be better if the lead was phrased 'Thomas Cruise Mapother IV, known professionally as Tom Cruise...' Zacwill16  ( talk ) 15:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's frequently done either way on Wikipedia. No need to change something that's obvious. Even if he didn't legally change his name it's how he is commonly known. Sundayclose (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The convention is that the person's formal name comes first, and then the common name. I'm changing it. Zacwill16  ( talk ) 17:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't make such unilateral decisions and wait for more opinions here. Your declaring it "the convention" less than two hours after your original post doesn't make it true. Why did you even post in the first place if you didn't want any other opinions? There is no universal convention on this issue on Wikipedia. Some examples of articles that do not follow your "convention" that I found in less than a minute: Kelly Preston, Brad Garrett, Dean Martin; there are many others. So again, please revert your edit and wait for more opinions here, or follow the proper procedures in WP:DR. Sundayclose (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't seem to think it mattered one way or the other, so I didn't expect objections. If you think it was better before, change it back yourself. Zacwill16  ( talk ) 17:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I said it's frequently done either way. You unilaterally declared it Wikipedia's "convention" less than two hours after your post. Obviously you weren't actually seeking other opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked because I wanted to know if he actually had changed his name to 'Tom Cruise'. Which he apparently hadn't. As 'Tom Cruise' wasn't his legal name, I thought the change would be uncontroversial enough to just do it, per WP:BOLD. I didn't expect you to start crying about it, and expecting me to change it back for you. Zacwill16  ( talk ) 17:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "crying" comment, consider this your first warning for a personal attack; please comment on article content, not editors. If you have other personal comments toward me, this is not the venue; place them on my talk page. And again, you asked for opinions here, yet you made the change with no supporting opinions less than two hours after your original post. I'll let others reach their own conclusions. Sundayclose (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What I asked is  ' Is there any evidence to suggest he has actually changed his name to "Tom Cruise", rather than this being his stage name? ' . Zacwill16  ( talk ) 18:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say that giving his common name first is preferable, simply from the point of style. The readers are looking for an article on Tom Cruise, and starting with that name seems logical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Common name is what should be placed first. As the article denotes such currently, and has done for considerable time, is correct.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think common names should be placed first, should you not be bringing this up at the many thousands of articles (the majority in my experience) that don't, e.g. Lorde, Louis C.K., George Orwell. Zacwill16  ( talk ) 18:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for the Tom Cruise article. If you want to discuss other articles, do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Tom Cruise. 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/20060509184148/http://www.genealogy.com:80/famousfolks/tomc/index.htm to http://www.genealogy.com/famousfolks/tomc/index.htm#toc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070210094125/http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/1/hi/wales/north_east/3407861.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/3407861.stm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090113093430/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003052563 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003052563
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238238,00.html#2

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 19:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Scientology not in first sentence because it's "not an occupation"
Note: A brief archive search for "occupation" did not bring this exact point up as a past discussion.

The body text's wikitext (after the Infobox) contains a hidden comment:

Tom Cruise (born Thomas Cruise Mapother IV; July 3, 1962) is an American actor and filmmaker. Cruise has been nominated for three Academy Awards and has won three Golden Globe Awards.

I agree that describing Cruise as "an American actor, filmmaker and Scientologist" would be unusual. However, he is famous as a Scientologist and was even given an award from the organization for promoting it; therefore, it is notable enough that it should be in the first sentence and not completely pushed to the bottom of the intro as it is now.

Better phrasing would be, "an American actor and filmmaker who is also famous for being a staunch advocate of Scientology." That shows the notability of the inclusion, and I think it is a neutral summary.

So, I'm editing it as follows:

Tom Cruise (born Thomas Cruise Mapother IV; July 3, 1962) is an American actor and filmmaker. Cruise has been nominated for three Academy Awards and has won three Golden Globe Awards.

I hope this answers all concerns. Thanks, — Geekdiva (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Spelling
I can't edit this page, but 'breach' is spelled wrong in the third paragraph of the 'Scientology' section: 'After YouTube investigated this claim, they found that the video did not breech copyright law, as it is covered by the fair use clause.'
 * This has since been fixed. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Cruse's [sic.] advocacy of Scientology" - obvious typo.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎176.61.69.54 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 March 2016
 * Thanks, I have fixed it. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2016
need to add the movie Losin' it 1983

Stevieraystrat (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See Tom Cruise filmography. Sundayclose (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Homosexuality
Black is white, it seems 92.28.1.163 (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC) If Cruise is gay, he's extremely good at acting 78.151.30.73 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

He did not jump "up and down"
This is a common misconception and it's baffling, as anybody can just look at the video. He did not jump "up and down", he simply jumped up on the couch and stood there. This is in reference to Oprah telling him a bit earlier that she liked how he stood on a chair on one previous occasion.

At no point did he jump up and down while being on the couch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.65.159 (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

TomKat's link to Supercouples
Considering that the TomKat's article was merged with this (Tom Cruise) article's section on relationships and thus making it null, I have linked the term (TomKat) to the Supercouples' section on celebrities. Without it, there is no reference to the meaning of the terminology; the merge did not bring the link to the Supercouples' article. My change is not unique. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's pages did the same with the term "brangelina," and Ben Affleck's page did the same with "bennifer" (Jennifer Lopez's page edited the lines in a way that made the link unnecessary). I am open to discussion. Historian (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, why is this not still this way? The TomKat article links to the Tom Cruise article again which is inconsistent with the rest of wikipedia (see the examples given above) so I fully support Historian's decision. Romeowth (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tom Cruise. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://itn.co.uk/home/18258/Cruise
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080929115013/http://sev.prnewswire.com/entertainment/20061102/LATH10602112006-1.html to http://sev.prnewswire.com/entertainment/20061102/LATH10602112006-1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/cher-once-dated-tom-cruise/story-e6frfmqi-1111116193761
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/people/article/0%2C%2C20096360%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20061119%2FNEWS08%2F611190359
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060823/news_lz1n23pubeye.html

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) 17:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2017
Under "Relationships", "While Cher was living with Cruise, her daughter Chastity Bono was also living there." should be edited to "While Cher was living with Cruise, her son Chaz Bono was also living there." This is because he has come out as a transgender man, and the article still refers to him as a woman. TSutton96 (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: I'm not sure why this is relevant to an article on Tom Cruise; I've deleted the sentence entirely. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Red link for Universal Monsters universe
In the last paragraph of Career > Acting, discussing the 2017 Mummy film, there's a red link about the shared universe. While the article for what is now called "Dark Universe" is still in draft form, in the short term it would be helpful to link to Dark Universe instead. Hopper262 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Age
He is now 55 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2017
Slenh4y888 (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  15:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Link requested: Notable individuals with Franks' sign
Could this link be added in the "Categories". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.197.209.85 (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Probable Copyvio!
I feel the text under Tom Cruise Picture violates copyright policy. The text seems to be copied from the reference given. Simranpreet singh (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Physical Statistics
Tom’s height should read Unknown. There is no reputable source for his actual height. The sources available often use info from his and the studio’s publicists, which is often unreliable. Other sources attempt to compare his height against his costars, which is also unreliable due to camera angles, heel height, whether either person is wearing lifts, etc.

There is no good solid information from unbiased sources.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.45.165 (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah Sabaisa (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah Sabaisa (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tom Cruise. 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/20120425091546/http://www.prgparis.org/node/57 to http://www.prgparis.org/node/57
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070120121741/http://www.premiere.com/best/2816/the-power-list-2006.html to http://www.premiere.com/best/2816/the-power-list-2006.html

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) 13:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018
EDIT REQUEST 2601:880:8100:5130:AC78:AC87:EC40:7801 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thomas James Cruise: accountability
although mr cruise seldom variates his casual dialect from persona to persona, his marveling ability retrospects a conveyance of possibilities ranging from one of the best people of all time as well as businessmen & entreprenuer. a demeanor that always contributes, enlightening a soul & encountering as is his endeavoring of all of his dispositions. DE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:880:8100:5130:AC78:AC87:EC40:7801 (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel this is kind of just filler wording and is already covered by his awards section. —  IVORK  Discuss 00:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2018
The last line of the second paragraph currently reads: "before starring as IMF agent Ethan Hunt in the action spy thriller Mission: Impossible (1996), the first of a commercially successful sixth-film series." but there's a small typo. It should read: "before starring as IMF agent Ethan Hunt in the action spy thriller Mission: Impossible (1996), the first of a commercially successful six-film series. VORSEY (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. 72 (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2018
nooooo cap huncho neno

}} Huncho Neno (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2019
73.245.249.225 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Themes of Book Scavenger Book Scavenger is written by Jennifer Chambliss Bertman the genre of this book is adventure and many more. This book is mainly about a girl named Emily that is determined to finish a book game for her idol with the help of many people. Emily loves playing it around the world. Through all this Emily has had determination and she’s been pressured. She keeps moving forward through all obstacles. Through out all this Emily has been determined through ups and downs not once has she ever give up on her passion. For example, Emily found the person who stole her book and even when she thought she would never get it back she stayed determined and got it. This also happened with a man named Babbage, he stole Emily’s book right before her eyes and never saw it again. She was determined to get it back once again, but even though she didn’t get it back she stayed confident and never put on a bad face. “you do have it!” she cried. Forgetting everything else, Emily ran and lifted the book from the island.” (Bertman pg.96). Also, Emily was pressured by her parents that she should make friends, but then she pushed all the pressure away and make friends on her own, her best friend James. Even the mom of James was pressuring him to friends to and James did the same thing as Emily. It worked with not having pressure. “I’ll even let you have the Gold Bug as a keepsake. You wouldn’t be interested in the prize anyway. Its nothing a kid would like-no toys or candy!” You know what the prize is?” Emily asked. (Bertman pg.96). She is trying to tell us that you should not trust things that look suspicious. Emily has been pressured up and down, but nothing has changed her mind about giving up. For example, James has been pressured as Maddie try’s to win a competition he ends up winning because James didn’t give up. Maddie, ever since she was in the school she bothered James, he stayed strong through it all. “Don’t let her get to you,” Emily said as they left a smirking Maddie behind.” (Bertman pg.175). Also, a dog ran out of a boutique and everyone was being pressured by everyone to catch the dog. Emily and James didn’t pay attention to the pressure and caught the dog. It states that they were panting and sweating because of all this. “a dog in the door way of a clothing boutique yipped “this way!” (Bertman pg.210). The author wants us to know that whenever you feel pressured just stay clam and the answer will come. In conclusion, in Book Scavenger Emily learns that no matter what she should always stay determined no matter what. Jennifer Chambliss Bertman wants us to understand that when your going through a tough situation just think, what would Emily do? Be that person. People around you are always going to pressure you, but you can over come it. Question: What, if anything, does this have to do with Mr. Cruise? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) 7 09-30-18

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2019
Updatig tom cruizes age ia mmust in current date and time and day and age and generation 12.107.218.94 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ While this request makes absolutely no sense, the age updates automatically every year on his birthday, which is in 2 days. Trillfendi (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Tom CruiseNischal Ojha (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2019
Height: 5'7" (170cm) 220.238.177.114 (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We'd need reliable sources for that. Has he ever verified that himself? – Thjarkur (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Name
According to Suri's birth cerificate (the same one that established that Katie is Kate not Katherine) his name is just Thomas Cruise, therefore I presume he legally changed his name from Thomas Cruise Mapother IV many years ago. Should we address that? As in Thomas Cruise, born Thomas Cruise Mapother IV. Trillfendi (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We can't cite to the birth certificate per WP:PRIMARY (also it's no longer online anyway). Buzzfeed is not a good source per WP:RSP, and the Buzzfeed article doesn't say that he legally changed his name. There are a ton of good reliable sources for his birth name.       Do you have a reliable secondary source that says he changed his legal name from Thomas Cruise Mapother IV to Thomas Cruise?
 * If so, the article should read: Thomas Cruise (known professionally as Tom Cruise, born Thomas Cruise Mapother IV, July 3, 1962)..., per MOS:NICKNAME, see Bob Dylan for an example.
 * If not, the article should read: Thomas Cruise Mapother IV (known professionally as Tom Cruise, born..., also per MOS:NICKNAME. Levivich ? ! 04:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thomases don’t need to be differentiated as Tom when the whole world knows Tom comes from Thomas. - Trillfendi (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I removed People and Pantagraph because they don't state he legally changed his name; I kept IBT in and left the prose alone. I don't think IBT is an RS but it directly states he changed his legal name and if that's good enough for you, I won't make an issue out of it. You're right about the hypocrism of course. I think the full birth name should go in the lead as per like every other celebrity article I've ever read (Bob Dylan, Elton John, Freddie Mercury), but it's in the infobox and if you feel strongly about keeping it out, I won't fight about that, either. So I'm good with it the way it is now if you are. Levivich ? ! 07:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IBT is a step up from Daily Mail to me, to be honest. Trillfendi (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

IS this the same paddy what called Tom O'Cruise??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:4A05:D700:D4BF:39FB:C75:6054 (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Biggest Movie Star of all time
In 1997, Cruise was named the 3rd Greatest Movie Star of all time by Empire Magazine. In 2003, Premier Magazine ranked Cruise 14th most powerful annual list & 16th most powerful in 2002. He was the ranked #1 moneymaking star at the box office in Quigley Publication by theatre owners or exhibitors for a record 7 times. In 2005, Premier Magazine ranked Cruise as the #3 Greatest Movie Star of all time. Ranked #14 on annual Power list in 2005 and #16 in 2006. Both the times he was highest ranked actor Anurag Vatsa (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , listicles are largely irrelevant to an encyclopaedia. Guy (help!) 08:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Total gross
The article states: One of the best-paid actors in the world,[3] his films have earned over $3.9($6.7B adjusted) million in North America,[4] making him one of the highest-grossing actors of all time.[5] He is often regarded as Hollywood's biggest star and one of the biggest movie star of all time.[6] Cruise carries a huge following all over the world.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anurag Vatsa (talk • contribs) 08:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

According to the cited source its billion, not million...

--Milan8888 (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , fixed. Thank you for raising this, and welcome to WP! Leviv&thinsp;ich 15:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

$6.7B adjusted US box office & he is Hollywood's biggest star. Anurag Vatsa (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020
2001:1970:4DE0:2500:15B9:7D0F:CAD5:25CF (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC) tom cruises nickname in highschool was chousie
 * I can't verify that. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Tom Cruise article on dating older women
Tom Cruise article on dating older women. This wording is very outdated. We would never states that a woman was dating a man three years older. Very sexist. Please edit. Julieski (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Filmography
There appears to be no mention of the 1981 film Taps in which Cruise had a semi-major role. George C. Scott, Tim Hutton, and Ronny Cox, also starred. It did much better at the box office than his other 81 film. Clemmohb (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The untitled space film? PinpointJoker57 (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Trip to space
It's now confirmed that he will fly to space with SpaceX Axiom Space-1, scheduled for October 2021, for a new movie project. I feel this should be mentioned somewhere, but I don't know where it would fit best. --mfb (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Source ? -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Given in the linked article. Here. --mfb (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do agree it should be added and the structuring should be based on other space tourists rather than professional astronauts. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The flight is part of his job as actor. "Tourist" is a problematic word. He is not a professional astronaut, but he is not (only) going for sightseeing either. --mfb (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway the fact is already landed on wikipedia (axiom_Space) but still hasn't room in this article. --79.36.50.12 (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request; non-RS
I would suggest that the Showbiz411 ref be deleted, as Showbiz411 is not an RS, per USERGENERATED and WP:SELFPUB. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9908:4467:7D2D:5F71 (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's being used as a source for the statement of the journalist who wrote it, which is perfectly acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, it about a communication sent by a third person. And as SELPUB cleary states: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. ".--2603:7000:2143:8500:41B0:CED1:8E78:6810 (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC) 2603:7000:2143:8500:41B0:CED1:8E78:6810 (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Legend 1985 Why is this movie not added to Tom Cruise bio info as a movie he acted in ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_(1985_film) 1.128.107.124 (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The primary Cruise article does not list every film. See Tom Cruise filmography. Sundayclose (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Tom Cruise-Missile
Could we have a section on the nicknames of Tom Cruise, such as Tom Cruise-Missile, Tomcat, Tomahawk, Tom Cruise-Cruz, the Last Calamari? Perhaps as part of a jokes section - cf Chuck Norris - which includes trivia such as how long he can hold his breath under water, the fact that he turned down the role of Spiderman, and the fact that... I know WP:TRIVIA etc, but this article is not the measure of a man.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also he is considered an honorary citizen of Australia quote unquote, but this article has (to the best of my knowledge) nary a mention of the Land Down Under where women blow and men chunder. He is a close friend of John Polson, the founder of Tropfest, and his ex-wife Our Nic's break-out role was BMX Bandits - cf Russell Crowe - and the Australian press made merry with the question as to who would get custody of Polson [I kid thee not]. Etc, etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See .--Jack Upland (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Save your jokes for open mic night at your local pub. No one here is interested in your sense of humor. Rcarter555 (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Add importan
Add tom cruise real voice in this page please Tomsakthi5 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC) heheggowomi job314 all be wating ':;))/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.56.245.239 (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"First ever movie in outer space"

 * There were already several movies filmed in outer space, including Return from Orbit (1983, landscape and interior scenes filmed), Apogee of Fear (2012, short, filmed onboard ISS), and an upcoming big-budget movie The Challenge, filmed in 2021 on ISS, starring Yulia Peresild. There's no way Tom can possibly produce "first ever" thing that was already done before.Beaumain (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022
In the Relationships and wealth section, please change TomKat to Tomkat. Bennifer makes no mention of Tom Cruise, whereas Supercouple specifically references TomKat and even has a photo of them. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:293D:4182:5C9D:2A7C (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Scientology's purported influence on Cruise
The cited source for the last sentence of this section doesn't support the sentence.

That last sentence currently reads: "Cruise's ex-girlfriend Nazanin Boniadi later compared the Church's auditioning of women to date Cruise and experiences with him to "white slavery."[123]". But in the report quoted within the cited source there is just: "[redacted] feels she was a victim of white slavery because she traveled across state lines under false pretenses". There is no explicit comparison of the auditioning etc. to white slavery. Implicitly it is a possibility, but it seems at least equally possible that it refers to the trafficking involved around the RPF after the relationship was ended.

Therefore - unless of course, a supporting citation can be added - the "compared to white slavery"-part should be omitted, reworded or replaced (e.g. "... later testified on the Church auditioning her to date Cruise and the abuse she experienced.").178.5.118.112 (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is half this article about Scientology?
One of the most famous actors alive, in dozens of blockbusters, and most of the page is about his personal life and religion, both things he hasn't talked much about. And the scientology section definitely suffers from undue weight. KRLA18 (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe it could do with some trimming, but you can't just delete the lot, given how much coverage it gets. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation
What is the correct pronunciation of his real last name? Skysong263 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC) May (like the month)-Poth (rhymes with froth)-er (as in the word “bother”). Seinfeld429 (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Paramount
I was just reading this article when I came across the section about Tom Cruise’s split with Paramount. The split happened in 2006, but Tom has continued to make movies with Paramount since then. Why is he still allowed to make movies with Paramount if this so-called “split” even happened? Seinfeld429 (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. Tom can still act in movies for Paramount. He just can’t produce them. Paramount seems to have reversed their stance on Tom by now. Seinfeld429 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Aviation
Why the article has not any information about Tom Cruise's aviation hobby, his flight permissions, his airplanes and what airplanes he has flight in his movies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.122.164 (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Movie T.I.P.S
You forgot his role in the 1981 movie T.I.P.S. 62.74.5.129 (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The entire internet seems to have forgotten it too, since I can't find any evidence of a film of that name via a Google search. Cruise did however appear in Taps that year, as our article notes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

First sentence of lede.
We seem to have a debate about the first sentence of the lede:

Prior version: Thomas Cruise Mapother IV (born July 3, 1962), better known by his stage name Tom Cruise, is an American actor and producer.

As edited by :Thomas Cruise Mapother IV (born July 3, 1962) is an American actor and producer.

To my mind, removing "better known by his stage name Tom Cruise" is not an improvement. The article is entitled 'Tom Cruise'. Everyone everywhere refers to him thus. It is his stage name. Omitting the name of the article subject from the lede here seems to achieve nothing beyond possibly making the reader wonder whether they have got the wrong article. If there is a legitimate reason to do so, I'd like to see a proper explanation as to what it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, that's a misuse of the term "stage name". Using such phrasing implies a person goes by something not derived from legal identity. Stage name is more like Carlos Estevez going by Charlie Sheen or how Dwayne Johnson is also called "The Rock". Such instances introduce completely different names altogether from what they were given at birth. You've completely disregarded how that isn't the case here. Secondly, readers can already figure out from the article title that he's known by "Tom Cruise". I thought that was already quite obvious. It isn't hard at all to see where the shortened form comes from. Mentioning his middle name in opening sentence more than once is therefore unnecessarily redundant, though this doesn't seem to bother you in the slightest. If he was more widely referred to by the Mapother surname, then the page would've been renamed accordingly. SNUGGUMS (talk / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I haven't 'completely disregarded' anything here. 'Tom Cruise' is Thomas Cruise Mapother IV's stage name. It's the name that appears on film credits. On billboards, In reviews. It may be 'obvious' where it comes from if you know his full legal name, but that doesn't alter the fact that he uses 'Tom Cruise' as his stage name, and the article should say so. In the lede, right at the start, since it is the purpose of the lede (per WP:MOS) to provide "basics in a nutshell", to "identify the topic". If the lede is to start with a formal name ('Thomas Cruise Mapother IV') that people may not be familiar with, it should logically follow by providing the most salient point of reference that people are more likely to be familiar with - that the article is about the actor everyone knows as 'Tom Cruise'. Sure, a reader may guess that since the article title is 'Tom Cruise', it is the same person, but why the heck not say so explicitly? Why leave it to the reader to figure it out? And while I'm no fan of following manuals of style blindly (most good ones tend to advise against this anyway), I'd note that MOS:PSEUDONYM, after stating that For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym, illustrates what it considers appropriate in an example which almost directly parallels this one: Timothy Alan Dick (born June 13, 1953), known professionally as Tim Allen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Not disregarding anything? On the contrary, you just continued to use "stage name" here after I pointed out how it's been used incorrectly. That term shouldn't be treated as synonymous with a shortened version of one's formal identity. You should stop conflating the two. I wouldn't use the term "psuedonym" here either as that would also suggest the inclusion of something not taken from a legal name. At the very least, if you insist on the duplication of "Cruise" (and your response makes it quite clear that you don't care how repetitive this is), then please don't keep in the misleading "stage name" bit. We'd honestly be better off with something like "commonly known as". Regarding your questions of "why the heck not say so explicitly?" and "Why leave it to the reader to figure it out?", here's my response to both: that would be like saying 1 + 1 = 2. A simple connection that doesn't take long to notice. It's not like we're introducing any complex ideas there, so I see no benefit of inclusion. As for Tim Allen, that isn't quite the same idea as "Alan" and "Allen" are technically different things, though I'm not sure using them both there is necessary either. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 01:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in debating about your personal definition of 'stage name', since it appears not to concur with those of sources better qualified to define the term. And please stop accusing me of being 'misleading' just because you disagree with me. As an alternative though, 'professionally known as' would work, and might be better since it is probably more appropriate regarding Cruise's work as a director.


 * If we aren't going to agree, maybe we should wait to see if anyone else comments, or ask for a third opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't recommend using "known professionally as" either since that would incorrectly suggest the man goes by something not taken from his legal identity. No objections to waiting for others to comment here. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with ATG and 'professionally known as', would work, not that the original wasn't OK. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with FlightTime's assessment. No issue with either from my angle.THX1136 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Typo for correction
Should be spelled "spaceflight", in : "Cruise is sponsored for an upcoming spacelight mission"

HUH?
"he aspired to become a Franciscan priest before being expelled from the seminary for drinking and becoming interested in acting." The way this is written makes it sound like Cruise was expelled for drinking AND becoming interested in acting. Rather improbable, don't you think - being expelled for becoming interested in acting? I'm making the assumption that the interest in acting began as a consequence of being expelled and was going to do an edit to that effect. Decided the original editor would have more immediate knowledge and, thus, be better qualified to react to this situation if truly needed. After all, stranger things have happened.THX1136 (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Did an edit to the sentence I mentioned for clarity.THX1136 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022
Please add "Category:People with dyslexia" (in double square brackets, sorted among the other Category: entries at the end of the article). Thanks. -- 24.91.152.172 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not done, already in Category:Actors with dyslexia which is more specific. -- Mvqr (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Lack
There are many things wrong with the Cruise article. It's not professional sounding enough and there is too much "fluff", unneeded material.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with your opinion. No mention to his incredible stunts is made, his way of filming with the minimal use oc CGI and his views about the viewer's experience in the theater, as opposite to mainstream streaming services. 139.47.121.88 (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, his stunts are mentioned as prominently as the third paragraph.Chillowack (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"Tom Cruise IV" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Cruise_IV&redirect=no Tom Cruise IV] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Paramount, United Artists
Paramount section is misleading given Cruise has made multiple movies for distribution by the company since the break of their relationship. According to the United Artists page, MGM had reacquired its 100 percent stake in the company by 2011. 82.21.19.72 (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I added a small section on this, but it needs work. Trying to slog through search results is going to take some time since its mostly about his more recent battles with them... which should also be put in there since it looks like he and and team really did "save theatrical distribution" after all. Regexina (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"Thomas Cruise" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Cruise&redirect=no Thomas Cruise] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Stubborn editor alert!!!
There is an editor who keeps on changing this page's main image without consensus, even when i advised him against it. His name is "DoughejiraMan", could an admin please advise him for me please. Much appreciated! BangGut (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Mr. Gut... you didn't even make an image edit consensus as well. Let's not get riled up over an image of Tommy Cruise. The 2019 Comic-Con image has been here for a while, and changing it now seems awkward, especially since it's an older image. Do we have a deal? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * My two cents... I prefer the comicon one; it's more three-dimensional. The 2018 one looks like he's wearing white things on his ears and has a distracting/busy background. If you two can't settle it yourselves (without edit warring), then someone please put up an RfC. Grorp (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it gets tiring of looking at a photo that has been on display for 3 yrs or so? What is so wrong with a so-called face-lift? BangGut (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing an image for a 'face lift' might be reasonable if the photos were equally good. The new one isn't. The headphones are distracting, and like Grorp says, the background is cluttered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Told ya. 3 to 1 DougheGojiraMan (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir. What is an RFC, btw? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * An RfC is what editors often use to settle a content dispute by asking other editors for their feedback. RfC → Requests for comment. Grorp (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Both of you need to stop edit warring and discuss here. Also, an RFC is unnecessary for something like an image change dispute ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 02:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

In case anyone didn't notice, the last editor slipped in yet a newer image. I'm pretty sure the original argument was between and a new one just appeared: Grorp (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Tom Cruise by Gage Skidmore 2 (called "the comic-con one")
 * Tom Cruise in 2018 (cropped) (called the 2018 one)
 * Tom Cruise (48364137131) (cropped) (another comic-con photo, but a new appearance here, all the same)


 * Correct. I wanted to keep the Comic-Con aesthetic, but I just wanted to get it over with. So, abiding by Gut's request, I changed it to the OTHER Comic-Con photo. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Liar, liar, pants on fire, i never told you to place any image from Comic-Con onto Tom Cruise's page! (The truth shall set you free!) BangGut (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is just childish. I think that the original image before the editwarring is better. Up close image of the subject (Closer than the 483... one), and the 2018 is extremely busy with the background and not ideal. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 17:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to differ, but hey everyones entitled to his opinion. At the end of the day it's all love bro 💪 BangGut (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the consensus is clearly against your opinion. Everyone except you has stated the original image is better. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 18:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The majority are not always right. Remember that! BangGut (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, this is works as a democracy. Majority wins. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really actually. See WP:Not a vote. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 01:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But for such a minor case (like you've said, on how an RFC is unnecessary), I think majority rules out. Plus, from my talks with BangGut, he is... outspoken... to say the least DougheGojiraMan (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really. IT just so happens that usually the majority has more policy-based arguments. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 01:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Majority" is not a Wikipedia guiding line... "consensus" is. Please read about Consensus policy. And please read Talk page guidelines while you're at it. Grorp (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No. You said you wanted a different image. In keeping with YOUR request, I just changed it to another. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you can call me Doughe lol. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The "comic-con one" and the one that says "48364..." are by the same guy at the same place, just different poses. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 13:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly DougheGojiraMan (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Tom Cruise
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tom Cruise's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "tom":<ul> <li>From Variety (magazine): </li> <li>From Mimi Rogers: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2023
He's turned 61. 2A02:810D:E80:4C41:78ED:955C:8BCE:6204 (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have purged the cache for this page. Deauthorized. (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023
Mr surya g (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I want to improve your current information about Tom Cruise's Presents Relationship Status.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request on 21 July 2023
There is an unknown reference to a "biological father" in the personal section. Was he adopted or had a step father? 2605:59C8:10D6:5510:695A:6659:4033:AC59 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

He had a stepfather, Jack South. Seinfeld429 (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate career and married/personal life
What is with the "career" and "married life" sections at the start of the page below the menu? There is no information given which isn't shared in the more detailed sections "Acting career" (1980s, 1990s, 2000s, etc.) and "Personal life" (Marriages and relationships, Scientology, Controversies, etc.) below. They also make for an unusual layout of the page which currently is career, personal life, career (again), production, personal life (again). The two shorter paragraphs "career" and "married life" should be deleted and, in case there is additional info which is missing from the rest of the article, should be added to the corresponding already existing more detailed paragraphs. Rooboos (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)