Comments:Tom Cruise spoofed in film 'Superhero Movie'

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Comments

Comments? Cirt - (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews = Anonymous fanboys

Wikinews is laughable in thier unabashed support of Anonymous. This article alone uses the name Anonymous three times, which is the same amount that it uses the phrase 'Superhero Movie'. This piece of news has nothing to do with Anonymous directly and they should not be mentioned in the article. I honestly beleive somone in the wikinews has an agenda to post at least one article per day in relation to the Anonymous in order to promote the group. It is decpetive and infultration tactics such as this that Anonymous actually protests and its the greatest of taints to both wikinews and Anonymous to practice those tacrtics themselves.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.57.96.1 (talk • contribs)

I'll agree to the extent that I think there is largely disproportionate amount of news on Anonymous/Scientology. BUT this is because of several Wikinews authors being interested in this topic. I do not think that merely mentioning Anonymous a lot implies a bias ... in fact I think that most of the articles are written fairly well in terms of being NPOV. If we had more people writing other news, the number of stories on Anonymous/Scientology wouldn't seem so strange. So, whomever you are that wrote the comment, get writing some other news! Wikidsoup - (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also we have tried and tried with e-mails and phone calls for the Church to give their side. They refuse to acknowledge those e-mails etc. That is not our fault. We have a few members who Edit Wikinews who are affiliated with the Church, but in reality, even they have refused to help us. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikidsoup (talk · contribs) is correct, we do not need less articles about any one particular topic, rather more articles about more topics in general. Cirt - (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be informative?

This is not the type of article I expect to be on Wikinews, and in my opinion, it should be removed and forgotten before more people lose IQ points by reading it.--66.31.227.244 19:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

^Comment by Tom Cruise fanboy. This is quite newsworthy, I can just see the impending lawsuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.130.195 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well at least I didn't have to say it first. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that stories about this Tom Cruise spoof in this movie have received coverage in other media sources for 4 days before this article was published. Cirt - (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)