Talk:Katie Holmes/Archive 1

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 [1] and [2].

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. [3] [4] 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'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—even uncontroversial ones—if they are obscure or difficult to find. This tends to be the case for many FAs on historical subjects. —Kirill Lokshin 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 Lokshin 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)

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 <ref><references>. But, basically it is seems to be doing what it is supposed to (I haven't read it thoroughly though). I've written a number of articles with more footnotes then sentences, and will continue to do so. The beauty of these footnotes, is you only have to follow/check the ones you care about, and can ignore the rest. A fact checker doesn't have to check all 89. They just check the ones they doubt. If there were 20 citations, but the fact they questioned was one of the other 69 other uncited facts, they'ld have a real problem. --Rob 13:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are two technical solutions possible. a) short term - use template:inote for some of the references b) long term - use style sheets and classes to make only key references visible by default. Given this, there's no justification for reducing the number of references in an article. They do not have to add clutter to the end user. Mozzerati 21:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's fairly easy to hide them (especially with cite.php) if readability is the prime concern and the value they offer in verifying material is so high that I see no benefit to holding back from encouraging the citing of all important facts. What's common knowledge to you may be novel to me and I appreciate the verifiability and the evidence that someone researched it, so it's much better to err on the side of more rather than less. We have to be careful to avoid dishonest citations and making articles appear more authoritative than they are, but that's standard content negotiation and research. More reliable sources wins out all the time. - Taxman ^Talk 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But that's my point really, is that I see a lot of things being cited that there is very little value in citing. Also, faced with 89 references in an article, I personally would feel very disinclined to check very many of them. If there were only 20 I might. I think in this way excessive referencing can be harmful. Worldtraveller 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point I made and I don't agree that's happening very often. My only qualification was referring to not using high enough quality sources. Again, what's common knowledge to one person is novel to another. I'd rather have 500 references in an article if there were that many important facts in it given they are easy to hide and if hidden, they wouldn't hurt readability which is the only drawback to them. And you don't have to check all 89 references. Check several and if they all check out well the chances of any being fraudulent are much lower. If a few don't check out that calls into question every citation that editor made, allowing effort to be directed to where it needs to to improve the article. Only in a type of formal review process would every citation need to be checked, and in that case again more is better. I think its a fantastic thing that we've finally turned the corner were editors are reallizing verifiability is the most important thing we can work on. Other people have already given the reasons why WP is different from other types of reference works and why we need to cite infinitely more than they do. Finally, why did you make the same post here and at WP:V and not note that in your post? - Taxman ^Talk 13:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There's some inaccurate material

Hello Dolly and Damn Yankees, despite indications in the media otherwise, were not musicals at Katie's high school, Notre Dame Acadamy. They were musicals at nearby St. John's Jesuit, an all male high school. I graduated from St. John's in 1998, knew Katie, and saw both musicals. I have my yearbooks which picture Katie and show her as casted in both Hello Dolly and Damn Yankees at St. John's, if anyone needs proof. This should be fixed in the article.

Vandalism?

Second paragraph - "In October 2005, the couple announced Holmes was pregnant with the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard." 139.163.138.14 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, albeit funny. -- Zanimum 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I really dislike vandalism, but I really have to ROFLMAO on this one! :-) Dr. Cash 04:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In her pregnancy section somebody wrote that Katie Holme's daughter's name, Suri, also means "fecal matter" in ancient egyptian, ROFL Guusks

Citations all messed up

Why exactly does this article use both {{ref}} and <references>? Pick one (the latter please!) and use that one for everything. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 01:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I had begun to change the ref formats to the new way, expecting someone else would lead the charge and continue. -- user:zanimum

The teabagging team?

any source? or just wishful thinking?

WHY WAS THIS A FEATURED ARTICLE?!

I am VERY disappointed. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.212.85.194 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 5 April 2006.

you can live without learning everything about Katie Holmes? amazing. —This unsigned comment was added by 161.76.99.106 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 5 April 2006.

It does not matter what the article is about if it is well written and sourced. Lapinmies 06:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. From What is a featured article:

1. It exemplifies our very best work.

The featured article has the most visible spot on the main page and is therefore what visitors see first. It's a bit disingenuous then to say it doesn't matter what it's about. Far too much gets written about American actors/actresses already without Wikipedia wasting a featured article on one. WhiteCat 08:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I should qualify this and say I don't mean any criticism of the article itself, or the authors - I know the feature article requirements are pretty stringent, and no doubt the article is a great example of article writing & editing. I just object to the classification of front page featured articles as some sort of dry content-agnositic category that's only of interest to other wikipedians for editing aesthetics: most of the front page readers *aren't* editors. Picking eye catching, interesting, off-beat, important & encylopedic articles is obviously a matter of taste, but.. Katie Holmes? WhiteCat 10:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well put WhiteCat, the front page is just like any other front page on the internet or newspaper, for that matter. This is hardly "our very best work" Cyborg 14:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

First truly poor selection I've seen. ---- Bobak 14:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Must not have been around long, then.. there was the Gwen Stefani song a couple months ago. Katie Holmes is World War II compared to that. 68.98.167.121

The one on April 1 was very poor but I guessed that was a 'april fools'. However this article is truely dissapoiting, it has [citation needed] all over it for a start. Luke C 15:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I had little to do with editing the article but you need to look at Katie Holmes#References and footnotes and Katie Holmes#Bibliography for the "cite". Also see Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also horrified that a "featured article" has [citation needed] passim. What happened? Was someone on a deadline and messed up or what? I agree this is an article that has a lot of sources, and I would bet most of them are pretty good, but with a nod to those who undertook the effort, this is *not* at the level of FA, imo. This gets tossed back across the desk to the student with a B minus, and a note that if they do the re-write and follow their Manual of Style, they could get an A. Disappointing.--BradPatrick 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur, posting this as the featured article is asking for vandalism and low repute for wikipedia. I like that these articles exist, but they shouldn't be featured.

4.0?

>her mother's alma mater, where Katie was a 4.0 student.

What does this mean? Could someone explain this in terms a non-American can understand.?Blaise 07:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

American schools use a scale that goes A, B, C, D, and F. A being the best, F (failing) the worst. In college this scale is usually changed to a number scale 4.0 being an A. Dismas|^(talk) 08:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a link, which explains the strange habits of Statesiders (ho ho) - Drrngrvy 15:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

some schools in the US use E's instead of F's. E.g., Ohio State University.

Filmography wrong way round

the filmography is upside down on this article, should be in chronological order (see all the style guides). please reverse it, or this article will be removed from FA list. Zzzzz 11:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is ridiculous that this is the third page I've found in a row that you've started this discussion, and with an idle threat to boot. I defer to my comment on the Julia Stiles talk page except to point out that both articles zzzzz links are inactive and he just changed the order shown to suit his needs. Why should I believe you carry this discussion in good faith when you're changing "policy" to fit your argument? Sad. Cburnett 03:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A further note. Zzzzz changed the Wikipedia:Filmographies to fit his argument so he could use it as an authoritative source (despite it being inactive). I've started discussion on Wikipedia talk:Filmographies#Chronological ordering to address this since Zzzzz is scattering discussion on many articles' talk page. Please continue this discussion there. Cburnett 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeoplemagazine

What has happened to the encyclopedia? Half this article is gossip. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's bad enough that this article is full of gossip as Malber points out, but it should absolutely not be on the front page! That's like saying "We don't care if wikipedia is turning into something else than an encyclopedia" Cyborg 13:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, too much rubbish. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid website. Celebrities pull stunts all the time. It's not notable, it's advertisment. Wikipedia should stick to the cold hard facts. --65.25.217.79 10:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography

The bibliography at the bottom of the article is way too long and not important since the articles are not used as references. I suggest radical cutting. --Tone 13:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

---

-Fixed vandalism where "Tom Cruise" had been replaced with "Rosie O'Donnell"

If this article is the "best of Wikipedia"...

...then this project is in serious trouble.

The article from top to bottom is incoherent, with no narrative structure or theme nor even a good timeline. The first paragraph makes absolutely no sense. The sections on Dawson's Creek make very little sense to someone who has never seen Dawson's Creek. The sections on her recent relationship to Tom Cruise are ludicrously over-referenced to citations that never should have been referenced by any reputable encyclopedia.

If anyone wanted an example of an article that looks as though it's been written by chimps, then this is it.

Don't bother with the "SOFIXIT" tag, because this article should be composted rather than try to salvage anything worthwhile.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.45.184 (talk • contribs)

This "chimp" tried to encourage major changes to Wikipedia policy to prevent phenomenon such as this, instead users who like chimpy gossip harrassed me, intimidated me, so I just left and started writing some books. Now here I am again preventing libel and other vandalism from less intelligent chimps. --67.77.201.22 16:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivial information

Do we really need to know what her grade point average was in high school or what score she got on her SAT? The article might as well list how old she was when she had her first period! That's all the first paragraph of the "Early life and career" section is: a random collection of facts. It doesn't give any insight into who this person is. I'd edit it down, but it's been oh so carefully cited. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd second the suggestion of a rewrite/reorganization. This article is commendably informative but it reads like a magazine piece, not an encyclopedia entry. Perhaps some of the factoids could be bulleted and the fat cut out. And 85 references?!? ka1iban 14:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Aritcle gone

It's gone. Replaced with 'hah dum bitch'. I belive fixing it might be required.

Prostitute?

Uh, in the early career section..."but turned it down[16] to continue her job as a prostitute on the streets of Los Angeles". I'm not judgin', but this is probably vandalism, yes? ka1iban 15:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

--That's the first I heard of Katie working as a prostitute. I think it's probably vandalism. I second that. (Oliver from Vancouver)

You're talking about one of the vandalisms that wasn't correct until several edits later. It was overlooked by those reverting vandalism and I had to manually take it out. --67.77.201.22 16:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

blocking the article

Shouldn't articles on the main page be blocked? So we would have avoided vandalism. Mr.K. 15:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We never want to block main page articles unless absolutely necessary. When articles are featured on the front page, they get a lot of improvement. There are many editors watching the featured articles and revert vandalism pretty soon after it happens.--Adam ^(talk) 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but those countering vandalism need to watch more carefully, some of the vandalism is getting overlooked because of the constant changes and, apparently, edit conflicts. --67.77.201.22 16:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• For example, this edit by User:Timbarajas[5] was not corrected by User:CambridgeBayWeather(Who's edit summary states: "CambridgeBayWeather m (Reverted edits by User:24.172.195.239 (talk) to last version by User:Timbarajas").[6] CambridgeBayWeather actually reverted to a vandalized version, so I had to go back and manually correct it[7]. The page should be locked, and anyone wishing to contribute should come here to talk page and suggest changes. --67.77.201.22 16:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC

if one so cares about an article could wait till it's not featured and fix the few problems that may arise. the benefit of several edits outweight any few problems. besides, who of the many that add to a featured article would actually do it if it wasn't featured?

That is the benefit of having it featured. Many improvements happen while it is on the front page. Many people add to the featured article when it is nominated for feature status also. Visiblity on the front page greatly improves articles. For example, I usually improve featured articles only after they are on the front page because I had never seen them before.--Adam ^(talk) 17:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

See also User:Raul654/protection. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ummm

"Weeks after ending a four-year relationship and year-long engagement with actor Chris Klein, Holmes began a highly publicized relationship with actor Tom Cruise in in a small role, Libbets Casey, in the film which starred Kevin Kline and [[Sigourney life. Her life parallels mine, which is all about new everything—relationships, personal perceptions—and about being guarded." Holmes filmed the pilot of Dawson's Creek in Wilmington, North Carolina, during spring break of her senior year of high school in 1997.[1] When the show was picked up by The WB, Holmes moved to Wilmington, where the show filmed."

Somebody fix that paragraph, quick? :-/ It's a featured article at the moment, kind of embarrasing. I'd revert it myself, but I'm not exactly sure what it's supposed to say.--Hawkian 17:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please fix

Weeks after ending a four-year relationship and year-long engagement with actor Chris Klein, Holmes began a highly publicized relationship with actor Tom Cruise in in a small role, Libbets Casey, in the film which starred Kevin Kline and [[Sigourney life. Her life parallels mine, which is all about new everything—relationships, personal perceptions—and about being guarded...

What's that supposed to mean? I couldn't make any sense of it. It's currently the featured article on the Main Page. Please help!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• ... --Hawkian 17:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The force was with User:Berolina.[8] --ElectricEye 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, Berolina!--Hawkian 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Good article!

I commend the people who worked on this. We need more good actor articles. So many are poor and don't deserve to be. I'll link to one who I think is high-level enough and needs improvement - Michelle Pfeiffer. JackO'Lantern 20:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dawson's Creek - Joshua Jackson

Just a little nitpick... If my memory serves me correctly... which it may not... Joey's first boyfriend was infact Dawson. Joey and Dawson were off and on all the time and it wasn't until their senior year that Joey and Paycee (?) went on that summer boat trip thing.

I could be very wrong, but that's what I remember. Thought I'd throw that out...

Bell's Palsy

I don't want to start another furor, but the Bell's Palsy article has Katie listed as a sufferer (along with a few questionable others). Can anyone confirm she's a sufferer or is this just prankery? Or possibly the work of evil psychologists? :) ka1iban 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As the principal author of this article who read dozens of articles to compile it, I have not seen a mention of this disease in connection with Holmes. If someone could cite a source for this, I would be grateful. PedanticallySpeaking 15:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

For want of a source, I removed the reference to Holmes in the Bell's palsy article. PedanticallySpeaking 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography 2

I still think the bibliography list is far to extensive. I would delete all but let's say 10 items but I would prefer someone who knows more about it to do it. --Tone 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why someone added all the biography? It's totaly useless for an encyclopedia. --Tone 14:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Because we are supposed to cite our sources. The list is not useless for it allows people to verify where facts came from. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more on this. PedanticallySpeaking 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

But this is what references section is for, as far as I know... Of course it is essential to cite sources but bibliography section just seems to list the magazines she was in. --Tone 06:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Placenta Eating?

BBC News has a story about Tom Cruise eating Katies Holmes placenta after child birth: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4918012.stm - Think this should be added in the pregnancy section.

That's called gossip. (And kinda sick.) --Kevin Walter 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

silent birth

anyone want to add some stuff on this crazy thing? I understand the birth was done this way.

Ther'e been no confirmation that ths crazy thing went down this way. BabuBhatt 22:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a lot of press hype on this but the articles so far have had little of substance, even People which seems to have had the inside track on the subject. So I'd prefer to wait until we get confirmation. PedanticallySpeaking 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

References

There's a good deal of references and such that could be greatly improved, using the named references function of cite.php. As I'm not really familiar with the article, would someone who is be willing to go in and tag it as such? I noticed a good deal of "ibid" and "[lastname]" references in the article, which can be changed thanks to Cite.php. I believe the article at WP:CITE would be useful for anyone familiar enough with this article's sources. -Mysekurity ^[m!] 03:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

After posting a request for comments to archiving this page on June 20, 2006 and hearing no objections, I created an archive today. Discussions before July 1, 2006 are archived at Talk:Katie Holmes/Archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 13:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Armani line

It has been reported that Katie Holmes will design a range of toddler clothers "inspired by Suri" for Armani, to be sold in high-end department stores. Here is a source link: [9] I'm still pretty new at editing wikipedia, so could someone else please put that in for me in case I somehow mess up the page? Thanks. Omgplz (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bell's Palsy

Also! The article on Bell's Palsy links to this page, but there is no mention of her having suffered the condition here. Is there any source that says she did actually have the disease other than just her appearance during her Dawson's Creek years? Omgplz (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Kissing Katie Holmes

This section had been in the article for a while but I took it out. I don't see any reason for its inclusion as it has no direct relation to Holmes.Joshua4 19:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

what the heck is the point about some magazine article imagining a fantasy sequence where they sign a contract and it's all fraud? seriously, that is so ridiculous to put in there, this is an encyclopedia about katie holmes, some magazine that writes some fictional story about her makes no sense to be put in here, that wouldnt even go on the page about the criticism of the couple! someone just wants to make things look a certain way and load it up with as much of that as they can.<Johnpedia 11:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)>

p.s. oh god, read the "stop the nonsense" writeup further down on this page. this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA PAGE OF INFORMATION. scary that you don't understand that.

==

The name Suri

In Saudi Arabia/Arabian gulf countries. Suri is a nickname for Sarah. It's very common to use it instead of Sarah but not a formal name. 213.251.134.44 08:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Suri also means "pickpocket" in Japanese. -Tacubus 11:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does Suri Cruise redirect to the Katie Holmes article? Granted, there's no hard evidence Suri actually exists, apart from TomKat's Scientologist friends; which means there isn't a lot of info (even for a stub) … but why redirect to Katie as opposed to, say, Tom Cruise? --Micahbrwn 06:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that Suri Cruise should have her own article and the fact that it is directed to Katie Holmes is kind of... dumb. She is her own person and although their is no 'proof' of her existing yet you could also put that in there. Just saying. Also the reason it isnt directed to Tom Cruise is because the baby did in fact come out of Katie, not Tom. :-P--Angela 19:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

→I agree with Bandaid. There is not enough info on Suri yet. It makes sense to put Suri in the Katie Holmes article becuse she in fact gave birth to Suri. Tom only played a small part.ShadowWriter 00:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDEL for information on how to undelete articles. --Yamla 19:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How old is the baby? Until the child actually has any notability of their own (assuming of course it does), it should redirect here. A baby who hasn't learned to talk, walk or do anything for itself yet has no notability of it's own and (I know this sounds clinical) is really only a feature of it's parents for encyclopedic purposes unless there are extraordinary circumstances (I'm struggling to think of an example; an infant heir to a throne that is orphaned or something?). I came and checked this out expecting fancruft but was surprised to see a very encyclopedic article. Let's keep it that way rather than confusing media interest and fan interest for notability. Elomis 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow!

Kudos to those that penned Katie's page. Not only is it detailed but you've got the references.

Katie would be proud to have obsessive fans that have high acedemic standards. - Htra0497 20:00, 14 July 2006 (AET)

As the principal author of the page, thank you very much. PedanticallySpeaking 12:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

overdone

this article seems really long and drawn out. i understand it's well referenced but i really think it needs to be pared down a little.

Fair use images

I'm not extremely familiar with Wikipedia's fair use policy, but is it true that no fair use image is allowed on an article if a free-licensed one has been located? It's just that the fair use images on the article have recently been removed for this reason. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 21:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is not correct and restored those images. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is correct if the copyrighted image is being used for the same purpose. Thus, a copyrighted image to depict Ms. Holmes may not be used if a free image is available. But a copyrighted image of Ms. Holmes posing on the cover of Playboy (hypothetically) would be fair-use if attached to a paragraph discussing the resulting controversy. --Yamla 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

SURI SIGHTINGS

How come there is nothing on the article about the Suri sightings?? Leah Remini and Jada Pinkett Smith have spotted Suri and described her. Yet nothing in the Katie Holmes or Tom Cruise articles talks about it. Lil Flip246 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Because those people were paid to say they saw Suri. Suri doesn't exist. It was a faked pregnancy, and they were planning to adopt someone. The real mom had her, and changed her mind. At least that is my take on it.Casual Karma 07:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

about her missing

where did the info go where it said katie went missing for 2 weeks so much that no one could get into contact with her before announcing that her and tom were dating? that shouldnt have been deleted that continues to prove to people that scientology is a brainwashing unit

This was noted in an article on the Fox News Channel's website. I removed it because of the lack of sourcing for the claim. If you have a reliable source stating this, let me know and I'll see about restoring the information. PedanticallySpeaking 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would this be of intrest anyway? Celbs are often not seen for a few days or weeks for varouis reasons. Just because she was not seen for two weeks before she started dating Tom might not even be related.ShadowWriter 23:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's another excellent point that I also should have made. PedanticallySpeaking 14:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This information had been restored, again citing to the same dubious source, and I again removed it today. PedanticallySpeaking 16:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

references

do you know that it is possible to use <ref>reference name="any_memo_name_choosen"</ref> to avoid doublon. it is quality article but more than 80 references is a bit reluctant (and as there are doublons I thing there are work to do...). I can help a while --Ayanoa 15:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying, hun?

Name Suri

The name suri DOES come from the hebrew princess (from the word "sar" which means officer), and is an Ashkenazi variation on the name Sarah (in Genesis Sarah is names 'Sarai'. It is a very popular hebrew name among Ashkenazi Jews outside of Israel who consider it their hebrew name. It comes from the hebrew, even if it is not in the israeli pronunciation. I wonder if the Israelis interviewed knew this when they said that it means "get out of here". They probably did.

  216.106.49.131 08:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In Eesti it means asleep/dead/death>suri/surnud/surm, respectively.24.56.247.13 (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Name

If the name of Katie on the birth certificate of Suri is Kate Noelle "Katie" Holmes shouldn't we write that, even if everyone writes just Katie Holmes? It must be the correct name, if it's there. --80.63.213.182 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's her common name. It really has no effect, I think. --TopGear 00:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would always refer to her as "Katie Holmes" but in the first sentence it is Wikipedia practice to give people's legal names, if known. So that's what I've done and documented the same in a footnote. PedanticallySpeaking 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I always thought her first name was Katherine and her parents just shortened it to Katie. Could we look into her name a little more?ShadowWriter 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please click on this link! Citizen Dick 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Again About Suri

I added some parts about the name "Suri" according to some references. Iran ‘s "National Organization for Civil Registration" [10] has a website which you can search a name and find how many people with that name exist in Iran. The problem with the site is that one can not link to an entry directly. So, if you want to check the credibility of the “3184” SuriS, please go here [11] and in the blank area cut and paste this سوری . by the way my aunt's nick is also Suri! "--Pejman47 23:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This article's bibliography is becoming very long

You people should cull it. There are far, far too many. Having all the citations is fine, but there's too much bibliography. Maybe include the bibliographical information relevant to any given citation within that citation (like most American scholars do nowadays).

Babe-O-Rama?

The dismissive reference to Michelle Williams might be a little uncalled for. If anything, Williams has a better repuutation as an actress now than does Holmes. Cranston Lamont 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Surname

On November 18, there were changing to the article indicating that Holmes had changed her surname to "Cruise." Doing some quick googling, I don't see any references indicating that she's changed her name. I've therefore reverted it to Holmes unless there is sufficient evidence that she has. Sean Hayford O'Leary 07:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please dont use foul language and post myspace links.

What the hell!

What is wrong with whoever keeps re-adding that made-up journalist's fantasy sequence about if the TomKat relationship were fake. That has NOTHING to do with Katie Holmes! Yes, the conspiracy about their relationship being fake does, but that huge paragraph is just put there to try and subconsciously influence people's opinions of her. STOP IT! GET A LIFE! Why do you even care? IF you hate her so much then why do you keep coming back here and posting it? Why don't you go do sometyhing productive or something to be proud about, something is extremely wrong with you and it's extremely disturbing to see someone care so much to make lies up like that and spread them. Why would u do that to her? why do u even care? youre possessed. Johnpedia 17:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well clearly someones a fan. Take a chill pill though. -- Lima Golf ^{Talk | Contributions} 21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I can't stand fans like that either.--71.235.72.188 03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

More recent sources

Staff (March 21, 2007). "Inside Katie's Prison: Crying Over Tom's Threats". US Weekly. Victoria Lasdon Rose. Retrieved 2007-03-23. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Staff (March 15, 2007). "Katie Holmes Punished!". Star. Retrieved 2007-03-23. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

These should be incorporated into the article. Smee 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Here are some more references

Walls, Jeannette (April 19, 2007). "Is Katie Holmes breaking free of Cruise control?". MSNBC. NBC. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Staff (April 22, 2007). "Katie to enrol Suri into 'kiddie Catholicism' classes". New Zealand Herald. APN Holdings NZ Limited. Retrieved 2007-04-22. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Staff (April 19, 2007). "Putting the brakes on Cruise control". Miami Herald. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Oliveira, Maira (April 20, 2007). "Katie Will Reportedly Sign Up Suri For "Kiddie Catholicism" Classes". All Headline News. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

AP and Post Wire Services (April 19, 2007). "Crui$ing for Cash". New York Post. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Staff (April 19, 2007). "Cruise to detox NY". Sunday Times, Australia. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Smith, Kyle (April 20, 2007). "Don't Be Tricked By $ci-Fi Tom-Foolery". New York Post. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Seifman, David (April 20, 2). "Crui$e is 'Detox' of De Town". New York Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Sanchez, Hazel (April 20, 2007). "Cruise Thinks Scientology Can Save 9/11 Responders". WCBS-TV. CBS. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Staff (April 20, 2007). "Tom Cruise holds fundraiser for Scientology 9/11 detox project". WABC-TV. ABC. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

These should be incorporated into the article as well. Smee 08:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

I've looked at these and I don't think they have anything of value to add to the article because they are either gossipy or about Cruise rather than Holmes. Many of them have no real sourcing--"rumored", "reportedly", or quoting dubious sources such as Life & Style. PedanticallySpeaking 18:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Suri Cruise

I suggested adding a link to some Suri Cruise photos under the [Katie Holmes] article, but it was quickly removed. Is it time to start an independent Suri Cruise article? There seems to be enough news and noteworthy information about her that she has already become a celebrity in her own right- deserving more than just a [redirect] to her mother. Thoughts? Patchagogo 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The link was inappropriate. Please see WP:SPAM and WP:EL. --Yamla 18:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What has Suri Cruise done that is notable independently from Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes? I'm not aware of even one notable incident but I've not been keeping up on the latest news. --Yamla 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

When the child was born we briefly had a Suri article separate from Holmes. It was put on AFD and the vote was to merge it with Holmes's article. PedanticallySpeaking 18:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography revisited

Some time ago I suggested trimming of the bibliography section. The only response I got was connected with citing sources but all the references are clearly made in the reference section. In comparison, similar FA like Angelina Jolie have no such section. Besides, it contains 100+ items and is therefore useless. So I am going to remove all of it. If any of the items is important for the article, please state its importance. --Tone 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone properly put a link to what a "bomb" is? I placed brackets around the slang term and was accused of vandalism by an admin because it linked to the traditional definition of being that of a weapon of mass destruction. Not all users will understand that a "bomb" is a film that performs poorly at the box office.

Redundant flag icon in the infobox?

I see this article uses Toledo, Ohio, USA to identify the origin of the subject. Would it be all right with just Toledo, Ohio, USA instead? I don't think the little flag really adds any encyclopedic information. See WP:FLAG for more detail on this. --John 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it down in the next 24 hours or so unless someone can come up with a good reason for keeping it. --John 05:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Hometown Reaction"

I took out this section:

Even before Holmes' engagement, her hometown paper was already speculating about "what happens if our very own 'good ole Katie' morphs into 'Katie Holmes, the former actress now better known as Tom Cruise's third wife.'" Following the engagement, the Chicago Tribune sent a reporter to Toledo who found the citizens felt the biggest star from their city was not Holmes, but Jamie Farr, who played Corporal Maxwell Klinger on M*A*S*H. "I think he's bigger than Katie. He's so humble and he's so proud of his hometown—he name-drops it all the time. If it wasn't for Jamie, I don't think people would really know about Toledo", said a Toledo waitress. Others quoted by the newspaper were puzzled by her interest in Scientology. Farr subsequently wrote a letter to the newspaper declaring "I admire Katie Holmes. She is a wonderful, beautiful actress" and "I do not feel that Katie and I are in any form of competition in the city of Toledo."

This seems to be just repeating a few comments from a couple of newspaper stories. I don't think it is important enough for an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour 05:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Topless scene

Is it really necessary to say that the movie was her first (and only) topless scene? It seems a little trivial. -OptimistPrime 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A little trivial indeed. Worth mentioning maybe, but that 5-line paragraph quote from The Blade is totally superfluous in my opinion.62.235.205.252 (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

For a featured article, the images in this entry do very little to show the reader what Katie looks like. Topher0128 18:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can find better freely-licensed images, we'd love to have them. We can't use fair-use images for this, though, as per WP:FU. --Yamla 18:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page has been vandalized, the entire bottom of the article is gone. – Ilse@ 20:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a problem with S. M. Sullivan's edit. AndroidCat 22:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Katie Holmes birth name is Katherine Noelle Holmes

Despite many claims to the contrary, Katie Holmes birth name is Katherine Noelle Holmes.
Please click on the references below for proof:

• TV Guide Online - Katie Holmes
• Mooviees.com - Katie Holmes

Citizen Dick 17:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In an interview, cited in my footnote--once removed, now restored--she said "my name is Kate." Suri Cruise's birth certificate--linked to in the footnote--gives her name as "Kate." The fact that these two sources, which are dubious, say otherwise is not persuasive. PedanticallySpeaking 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Katie Holmes first pregnancy before Tom Cruise's baby

Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Possibly_reliable_source_repeating_speculation.3F

A watered down version with a reliable MSNBC source is in the works. KatieHfan (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiding this in a footnote isn't the solution. The MSNBC page is "Tabloid Tidbits" - that alone makes it questionable. It appears to be based on a National Enquirer article, also questionable. The source is an unnamed guy who claims to be a friend of Chris Klein - questionable. And the MSNBC page says "A spokesperson for Holmes says the Enquirer story is false." In the WT:BLP link above, the only comment so far was agreeing this should go. Gimmetrow 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling scientology a religion

I fail to see how it is neutral to call it a religion. The only supportive argument that it is a religion and not a cult is made by the cult itself. Putting "church" in the name of an organization does not meet the definition of religion. Thus using this name is not neutral and is biased towards the organization. Calling it a cult is more than neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeThoughts (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources call it a religion. Wikipedia is based on reliable and verifiable sources. Constantly removing any mention of "religion" when it comes to Scientology is POV pushing, plain and simple. --clpo13_(talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To FreeThoughts, we're not going to be calling it a cult. Using "religion" would be fine; the source here has "Katie Holmes says she is embracing the tenets of Scientology, the religion of her boyfriend, Tom Cruise". The two versions in the article are "joined Scientology" and "converted to Cruise's religion, Scientology". Is "joined" really worth reverting? Gimmetrow 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The article sited did not refer to it as a religion for this even. There is much dispute across countries addressing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.36 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How is "embracing the tenets of Scientology, the religion of her boyfriend" not referring to Scientology as a religion? If this can't be resolved, this article will end up quoting the source verbatim. Gimmetrow 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a verbatim quote if it would avoid silly edit wars like this. This article in particular has been the target of removal of the word "religion" in the context of Scientology over the past couple of days. --clpo13_(talk) 22:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, Scientology is considered a religion and is classified as such. Whether people agree with that or certain countries recognize it as one isn't the point. Every religion or set of beliefs have their critics. In my opinion, this article isn't here to establish whether or not Scientology is a cult or a religion, it's about Katie Holmes. This only became a problem in the last couple of days when, seemingly, one registered editor and some anonymous IPs decided to change this article and any other article connected with Scientology. If it's that big of a deal, I found an article written by a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary that covers this topic and addresses this very question. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldnt be labeled a cult, and this isnt the place for it. But the debate about if she "convered" to scientology is valid. Either directly quote the article, or leave it as joined a "church" —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoSaysNo (talk • contribs) 01:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My earlier points are invalid and in fact do openly violate NPOV. My apologiesin referencing it as a cult. --FreeThoughts (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography 3

User:Tone removed the bibliography section. I was thinking of doing the same, but there are sources in the text which refer to the bibliography, like "Cohen". The bibliography listed two sources by Cohen but at least it narrows the possibilities to (hopefully) those two articles. If we can't get the reference info from this version moved in a reasonable time, I think it should be restored until someone is willing to do the work. Gimmetrow 18:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Her ugly ass picture

Could you guys GET a more UGLY picture of her? I mean good lord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.169.121 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

TomKat's marriage impossible

Rolfe, Peter (April 20, 2008). "TomKat's marriage impossible: Has Katie Holmes lost that loving feeling for Tom Cruise? Friends say she has finally succumbed to the crushing weight of their high-profile relationship". Herald Sun. News.com.au. Retrieved 2008-04-19. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Source to use in this article. Cirt (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Suri

Why the hell is suri asian? so caucasian+caucasian=asian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.21.240 (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Toledo

I don't have a source at this time, but Katie Holmes isn't technically from Toledo. She's from Ottawa Hills, which is a neighboring township with an independent government and police force. I'll check back issues of the [i]Blade[/i] and post when I can fid it. I live in Toledo, so they made ahuge deal about this on local news. LordShonus (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

waaayyyy to long

needs to be abbreviated or broken into separate articles. we don't need excruciating detail about her lousy movies and her lousy performances in them. they suck, she sucks in them, we get it. 71.231.103.130 (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mother's finest!

• What for, is this article about d...creek; mixing person and figure, pretending to be an interview and calling April Joy?

Boardering writing , which tries to hurt an extraordenary actress! Please remove this! Mirrowship in a dull form, not having understand the relations this film family acts on. A turkey isn't a duck, and she isn't playing a duck either. A marvolouss film about american tradition in real life being spit on. In my eyes..........--Danaide (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read it again. The section starts out describing the character, which by the way is "Joey", not "Joy" and then discusses how she got the role and how Holmes herself said she was a lot like the character. Perhaps your English skills prevented you from realizing this... Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What about her other child

Doesn't she have another child named "Sun." Who did she have that child with and how old is the child? Why hasn't this been included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where you got that, but to my knowledge, no, she has no other children. Which would also be why it isn't included in the article. I'm not quite sure where she would have worked that in, with her schedule without it being widely reported. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no famous person that has a child named Sun. I'm not sure what this commentator was even thinking; judging by his edits, he seems to be knowledgeable and wise enough. ★Dasani★ 22:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"In Hebrew, it means 'princess'"

The word Suri doesn't mean "princess" in Hebrew. The Hebrew word ("Nesikha"; נסיכה) isn't even close to that. If, at all, this word (סורי) means "Syrian". I don't know if Mr. Cruise was misled or misquoted, but what he said was simply wrong. Idobi1 (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Middle Eastern script used for the name was not provided when Tom Cruise announced the birth of his daughter. He offered the explanation that it was Hebrew in origin but many speculated it was just a diminutive of Sarah. ★Dasani★ 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Suri Cruise

Isn't this article rather running far afield? The section is no longer about her daughter, mind. We've gone from an article about Katie Holmes to an article about the name Suri. Wouldn't a lot of this content be better suited in an article about the name per se? Dlohcierekim 17:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is extraneous content and we never add sourcing to other Wikipedia articles. I removed the newest addition. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Pregnancy

"New Idea" and "Woman's Day" both report that Katie is pregnant with her second child. I added this information but it was removed. Why? 58.110.117.96 (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Geoffrey Hilliard, Kew, Victoria, Australia

I removed it because you didn't source it. Nymf _hideliho! 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tool recommendations

• Citation Bot
• Major contributors
• Checklinks
• automated peer review:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   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&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.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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.<ref name="Newman"/><!-- I'm assuming the reference to "Neuman" was actually "Newman'. -->" 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#Bibliography_3. 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)

 Not done 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

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Katie_Holmes 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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Church_of_Scientology_IP_addresses_blocked, 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)

 Not done 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&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 receivedOnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Katie Holmes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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