Talk:John Travolta/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Improvement drive

A related topic, Pulp Fiction, is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for this article.--Fenice 06:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Verified family

For the record members of the Travolta family include Margaret Travolta, John Travolta, Ellen Travolta, Joey Travolta, Rikki Lee Travolta; Jack Bannon, Rachel Travolta, Nicole Travolta, Michael Salvatore Travolta, Hellen (Burke) Travolta, Kelly Preston, Salvator Travolta, Molly Allen Ritter, Jonathan Rau, Jet Travolta, Tom Fridley, Sam Travolta, Ella Blue Travolta, Valentino Travolta, and Annie Travolta. This is not an all inclusive list, but all those listed are confirmed. Paramountpr

Please explain how you have confirmed the Rikki Lee Travolta allegation. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Via direct work for and with the family, the verified members include:Margaret Travolta (Maggie), John Travolta, Ellen Travolta, Joey Travolta, Rikki Lee Travolta; Jack Bannon, Rachel Travolta, Nicole Travolta, Michael Salvatore Travolta, Hellen (Burke) Travolta, Kelly Preston, Salvator Travolta, Molly Allen Ritter, Jonathan Rau, Jet Travolta, Tom Fridley, Sam Travolta, Ella Blue Travolta, Valentino Travolta, and Annie Travolta (Ann). This is not an all inclusive list, but all those listed are confirmed. If confirmation is needed on a person not listed, please contact and assistance will be offered. Paramountpr 14:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


Rikki Lee Travolta, Jonathan Rau, and Tom Fridley are nephews of John Travolta. Well known fact. Molly Allen, Rachel Travolta, and Nicole Travolta are nieces. DonnaMo 13:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Rikki Lee Travolta is John Travolta's nephew.Roadracer123 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

When was 'Moment By Moment' filmed?

Just curious about Travoltas long hair in this film, and his short hair in SNF and Grease. I mean to have read he went almost directly from SNF to the filming of Grease? Wasn't 'Moment...' done AFTER 'Grease'? Does anyone know dates/months of filming of all these three films?




Australian Football team

"He celebrated with the Australian national football team in their dressing room following their qualification for the 2006 FIFA World Cup"

??

Why is this included in the article? and secondly why was he celebrating with the Australian team in the first place? Does he have some sort of connection to Australia?

In any case this sentence should be removed. Jaw101ie 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

John Travolta celebrated with the Australian team because he has an endorsement contract with Qantas Airlines, based out of Australia, and as a part of that promotion he served as Captain in special promotional flights of the Australian team. Paramountpr 14:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sicilian

Does anyone have a reliable source that his father was of Sicilain origin? And a source that describes John Travolta as a Sicilian-American (if anyone wanted to add that cat) Mad Jack 07:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[1], [2]. Arniep 18:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Eh, the first source is not reliable. It's "some guy's website", essentially, and all it says is that Travolta's parents were Irish and Italian. The second source, which is reliable, just says, on his father, "He may be from the commune of Godrano, in the province of Palermo, in Sicily". Although we could say, in the article, that his father "May" have been from Sicily, citing that source, we certainly shouldn't put him in a Sicilian-American category. Mad Jack 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you can place him in "Sicilian American" category. I have emailed the second source regarding the following information, which I just added to the article -- Travolta's paternal grandfather, also named Salvatore Travolta, immigrated to the United States in 1904, at the age of 25. He arrived in New York City on 23 June 1904, aboard the "Nord-America" from Palermo, Sicily, according to the shipping manifests posted at www.ellisisland.org. He gave his hometown as Godrano, Sicily.[1]Kitchawan 21:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image

Uhh....a movie poster, or VHS or DVD cover would usually be necessary in articles about the film. The most necessary image would be a movie screenshot, about who the actor played. --PJ Pete

Good Article

This is a really good, well-written article! loulou 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Controversy

Italian culture my ass! Fenrir2000 10:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Mother's name

Travolta, the youngest of the six children in a Roman Catholic family to Salvatore and Helen Tom, was born in Englewood, New Jersey.

Tom?? Is that vandalism? –☆ CieloEstrellado 03:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Fixed. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And the award...

...for the unintentionally funny goes to: There has also been widespread speculation that Travolta's son Jett does not have Kawasaki syndrome ... because this illness is primarily found in Japanese children under the age of five.


"Family" section

The section on "Family" needs a complete rewrite. It doesn't mention, for example, when Travolta married Kelly Preston or the fact that they have a daughter, much less her name. Rather, it's all about allegations that Travolta and Preston's son is autistic, which are ultimately sourced to a Hollywood gossip blog, and a major newspaper's gossip column which uses as its only source the same blog entry (plus a summary of Usenet posts). The section also says, In the words of a director of one advocacy video, Joey's support of organizations like Cure Autism Now keeps him up at night, such is his fear of authorities breaking down his door and taking him away to be "cured". This belongs, if anywhere, in a "Criticism" section of the Joey Travolta article, but as it is unsourced criticism of a living person, it probably does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This family section needs to be deleted for the most part, I took a look at 'Hollywood Interrupted' & Clambake (xenu.net) and one's a gossip blog, the other an anti-Scientology message board. Neither one is WP:RS. My attempts to edit this mess have met with reverts and someone has put semi-protected on the article, as if the real problem was n00bs vandalizing it! I am a n00b, but no vandal. Suggest that someone who agrees with me correct the real problem: poorly sourced derogatory info.

S. M. Sullivan 01:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan

Mark Ebner is an award winning investigative journalist. Just because he writes about Hollywood doesn't make his website "gossip". His article is credible; the "Kawasaki syndrome through carpet cleaning" that Travolta is telling isn't. I am therefore restoring it. --Tilman 07:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You're only putting it in there because it makes them look bad, and you are searching for any tiny little thing to make them look bad and put it in because they are Scientologists, that's the real reason, let's not kid ourselves here. And she didn't say he got the syndrome through carpet cleaning, she said he had it, when he was at the hospital being treated or checked out for it, he was crawling around on the carpet and breathing in the fumes, how did you misread that? And you're no doctor. 24.69.67.173 01:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "S. M. Sullivan", you are a vandal. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If I had put a pointless link to derogatory info into someone's bio, then I would be a vandal. Vandals do that. Hypocrites do it, too. Since I've come here, I've seen a link to Glen Stollery's 'Tom Cruise is Nuts' website get removed from the Tom Cruise bio. Who put it there? Not me. It was removed by Cyberanth, by the way. If you're so concerned about vandalism I could also point out the links to Tilman's anti-Scientology site that somehow found their way into the bios of living persons who happened to be Scientologists. Putting such links into these bios was vandalism. You and your friends have some 'splaining to do. -- S. M. Sullivan 02:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan

Please go read Wikipedia:Vandalism; it's pretty clear from your incorrect declarations about "this would be vandalism", "that would be vandalism" that you don't know what the Wikipedian definition of vandalism excludes. Now, changing a URL so that it still claims to be pointing to an award-winning magazine article but actually now points to a different document altogether, especially while falsely describing your action as "correcting" the link, now that's vandalism. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Note that he still hasn't 'splained that one :-) --Tilman 07:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have it on very good authority that Travolta is not the actual name of John or his family. John's real last name was Biezel. Then he changed it to Rojas. Finally he settled on Travolta because he wanted to come across like he was Italian even though he's not. I also have it on good authority that many of the supposed Travoltas are actually not related to each other but are a "Family" put together by the film studios of different actors. I went to high school with one of the "family" members. I know this is fact because of having gone to high school with one of the Travolta/Biezel/Rojas people and they are always bragging how this group of totally unrelated German and Mexican individuals are passing themselves off as an Italian family. However I don't want to add it to the article without documentation. Does anyone have documentation so we can put an end to this scam of the American people? ElBrazoOnofre (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Very amusing. Just what I need on a quiet Friday evening with no vandals that need blocking right now. If you want it in, why don't you provide reliable, verifiable sources? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I know this is true. The Travoltas are not a family. They were assembled by a film studio to appear as if they are a family. John Travolta's real last name is Biezel. I went to high school with with one of the Travolta/Biezel/Rojas people. I don't want to add it to the article without documentation and me being an eye witness doesn't count. Because this is absolutely true there must be documentation out there and I am asking for help to see if anyone has it. ElBrazoOnofre (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology series tag

I've been editing Barbara Schwarz and noticed that Mr. Travolta appears in the {ScientologySeries} info box. Since the box wasn't in this article I added it under the Other section where it mentions his relationship with the CoS. The picture of the kiss on the stairs should probably be deleted by somebody who edits this article regularly. I don't plan to edit any further but it might be a good idea to move the CoS info to his personal life section, if he were a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/etc. would his affiliation with them be listed under "Other"? Anynobody 07:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

11 year gap

Between staying alive and pulp fiction (11 year gap) can we really say he was part of 'major' films? okay, the 'look who's talking' franchise was reasonable successful, but there were 5 years between staying alive and look who's talking.... hardly prolific. Most of the films he was involved with in this period were turkeys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.191.228.4 (talk • contribs) 11:16, March 21, 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns

I have deleted material that in my opinion clearly violates WP:BLP. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid newspaper. Malicious rumours and unsubstantiated sexual allegations have no place here. Such material violates policy because BLP entries must be edited sensitively, conservatively, responsibly, and factually. This material is neither notable nor important to the topic of the article. Nor is it encyclopaedic. It has no place in an encyclopaedia. Do not replace this material without first of all obtaining a strong consensus from several unbiased and well-established editors. FNMF 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

When removing stuff per WP:BLP, it's best to post it to the talk page. Otherwise, people who may be able to find reliable sources for the information may not know what was removed. ShadowHalo 20:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, here is what WP:BLP actually says: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." In any case, the material is non-encyclopaedic, whether reliable sources are found or not. FNMF 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The material in question should not be re-included unless and until a consensus of well-established editors agrees to such re-inclusion. FNMF 09:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I support reinclusion. I disagree that what you apparently deleted is "poorly sourced". --Tilman 16:12,

28 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with FNMF that poorly sourced derogatory material, especially of a sexual nature, does not belong in Wiki bios. So thanks to all who remove this sort of stuff when they see it. 69.12.131.206 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of trivia section

I have deleted the recently added trivia section. I draw editors' attention to WP:BLP#Trivia_sections, which explicitly states that BLP entries should not have trivia sections. The reason for this is that such sections then become justifications for the inclusion of non-notable material that may often violate WP:BLP. The deleted material is the following: "Travolta stated in a 2005 interview with Reader's Digest that he is nocturnal.[2]" Editors who strongly feel this material belongs in the entry may attempt to find a place for it (personally, I don't believe this is in any way notable material and should simply be removed). FNMF 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right... thanks. It is fairly interesting though, if intrinsically "trivial."
Candent shlimazel 15:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The picture of Travolta in the actor infobox features him holding a drink. This is rather informal and is not consistent with the style of the other headlining photographs which I have seen in other biographical articles. I understand that images used in articles must have a Wikipedia-compatible license, and that this one was found on Flickr, but, does anyone else think that perhaps the image should be cropped down, so that it looks a little bit more like a portrait? -Severa (!!!) 02:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point about the image being informal because he's holding a drink. I also think it looks kind of odd with Travolta hugging the left edge of the image and having space on his right. It so obviously looks like a cropped shot because it's not centred. I've cropped it down to just his head and by doing this have also centred it. The original image is still in Commons, so if anyone disagrees they will be able to revert. I prefer the smaller image, and as it's being used solely to identify Travolta, the only thing we really need to see is his face. Rossrs 02:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The cropped-down version of the image looks better. I also noticed that the previous image's large size stretched the actor infobox out of its usual proportion. So thank you for fixing this issue. -Severa (!!!) 07:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, Severa(!!!) Rossrs 08:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Movie listing

He's been in a lot of films. I suggest this overly extensive list that dominates the length of this article be chopped down to his most notable roles and a reference such as IMDB be used (already is) instead for those who need a complete list. Piperdown 20:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Receding hairline

An edit was included into the "personal life" section of this article tonight, with respect to Travolta's receding hairline. The reference source used was a tabloid website[3], which doesn't quite meet the reliable source standard. Even if it did, his having a receding hairline isn't particularly notable; there would need to be some evidence that it is a significant fact that has a direct impact on the reason for his notability (i.e., film star). Risker (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and challenge you to show the source you are using for the basis of your argument. It is notable as he is a public figure and makes an effort to disguise his true appearance. It is notable that he does that. Bluefield (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your cite consists of two photos. They say nothing about a wig, or a hair transplant. Indeed, your own additions say "apparently", which is good as admitting that you are guessing and conducting original research (if we could generously call it that). Either way, your addition fails to meet acceptable standards. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Picture

On the Picture on the right John is in Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.82.48 (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Travoltas signature trademark

I don't think I have ever seen this in print, but anyone who has seen any number of his movies knows that he has at least one scene in which he is dancing. Begining with The Boy in the Plastic Bubble. I would like to add a trademark section but am not yet bold enough to do it without a citation. If anyone has a citation, could, or even should the information be added. Please say either for or against so that we could have some consenses on the matter. Jojhutton (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Durango, Mexico

Needs disambiguating. City or state? Aille (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

2000 to present section

The "2000-present" section under his career really needs to be updated. There is sparse content that does not do him justice; he's been in near 20 films since 2000 according to IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.74.28.114 (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Kawasaki

Kelly Preston claimed her son had Kawasaki and that it causes seizures. Not calling them liars or anything, but the article cited E! online as being a source of the medical info. Someone who has more time, maybe add another credible medical source for that.VatoFirme (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple issues that come up with this. First of all, it's quite rare that a medical professional would make a public statement about someone's diagnosis, so in most all cases, what the public knows about someone's medical condition is what is stated by parents/family members or spokespersons for them. In fact, at this point, every news source about this death is going to say the same thing. I'm not sure what you would like for us to add. A statement from their doctors to confirm he had been disgnosed at one time with Kawasaki syndrome? It is well beyond this article to add a "credible medical source" to confirm or dispute what Preston said. That would constitute synthesis in the form of "Preston said this : one medical source said that Δ Preston must be lying". In fact, there are credible sources online that confirm that one of the lesser symptoms happen to be seizure. [4] [5] Medline and the NIH are good enough to convince me. Nothing anywhere is saying he died because of Kawasaki syndrome. They are saying 1) he was diagnosed with it at a young age; 2) he had seizures in the course of it and 3) it is suspected that a seizure was related to the death in some way. It's a fact that seizures can cause brain damage that will result in continued seizure problems later. If the press reports he died because of Kawasaki syndrome, then it is a problem with how it is being reported. Meanwhile, it is beyond the scope of this article, mostly because of WP:BLP issues, to try to refute the statement that Preston has made, either by eliminating mention of it in favor of an article from the New York Daily News that actually contradicts itself (see the statement that seizures aren't associated with Kawasaki and then at the end which mentions research that indicate it might well be), as well as the links above that I posted which say that seizures can be associated with Kawasaki syndrome, or by publishing our own medical analysis, or by adding content that tries to correct the assumptions that are being drawn from how things have been worded. We must be careful not to make the error of synthesizing an interpretation of any of this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the snippet about seizures, mainly because the source given at the end of the sentence is certainly not one that has any medical knowledge, it is just an article. If someone would like to add back in about seizures (controversial, since it is actually claimed by various sources, including Kawasaki support groups, that seizures are not (or extremely rarely) connected to Kawasaki) being a side effect, I think a credible medical source needs to be added. And I agree with the things you said about it being difficult with medical information to actually source claims, but since people will no doubt we stopping by wikipedia to read about Jett, it would be misleading at this time to claim that seizures are a side effect of Kawasaki, and that this isn't simply something that media have taken from a Kelly Preston quote, which is essentially where it has come from. Perhaps, it would be more prudent at this time to say that Kelly has spoken of seizures as a side effect of Kawasaki, just to put the information out there, but not allow the article to read as if this is proven without a source to back it up. I don't want to get into an edit war with anyone over this, but I think this is an important point to consider. Sky83 (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Going back on myself, I've read through it, and put a sentence which is perhaps more reflective of the conflicting opinions of different apparent experts. If anyone wants to change it, I won't argue, but I do think this sentence is perhaps more fair considering how authoritatively it was worded before. Sky83 (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I very much agree with you Sky, but I think people are going to kick up a fuss because it draws attention to the fact that seizures are disputed more than other aspects of Kawasaki disease. I think you should take off the sentence that says about medical professionals, but ask for a citation. I would do it but I'm not a registered user and this is protected now. I guess because of Jett....anyway, I do agree with you entirely, but I think for now you should aske for the citation instead. Just my opinion, but I don't know lol. 90.213.11.208 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem, thanks and I agree. Have added the citation request. Best wishes. Sky83 (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the more sources I read the more I find that in fact do support that seizures can occur with Kawasaki syndrome, mostly as a result of high fever. Other comments made by Preston regarding that say that at the time when this occurred, Jett was 15 months old, and was running fevers in the range of 104-105, which is a febrile point at which convulsions can occur. Because it is a lesser result from the syndrome doesn't make it any less possible in this case. A source was present, the statement was attributed to Kelly Preston, which is perfectly valid for inclusion, and it is beyond the scope of this article to verify or discuss the yeas and nays of the syndrome. At this time, a source is presented that supports that Preston said the syndrome can include seizures. I honestly think the more salient controversy about this was that initially, the wording being used in the press implied that Jett had Kawasaki syndrome which was causing his seizures now and professionals were disputing that, which from my reading of the literature is true. The fact is, however, as I said earlier, if a medical condition occurs such as this, which included prolonged high fever and resulting seizures, damage can occur which could lead to a continued seizure issue. As I said though, it is beyond the scope of this article to support or refute issues concerning the syndrome, since no medical authority is going to go on record as saying Jett Travolta had or didn't have Kawasaki syndrome at 15 months of age, or that he had or did not have seizures at that time. We'll know much more in another 24-36 hours, it can wait with the citation of Preston's statement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to possibly agree with you, but that source is a dead link. It needs to be cited from somewhere else, and considering this is a very important point, there must be a correct link. I'll leave it as it is for now, but if there is no other source provided, then I would suggest reverting it until one can be found, since it currently gives the impression that there is a source quoted that provides evidence (or at the very least medical comment) that Kawasaki causes seizures. I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but I think it technically would've been better to leave the source (had it been a live link) at Preston's comment, and find another one for the medical opinion to avoid giving a misleading impression. Sky83 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit - the source does seem to be correct now, it may just have been high traffic although that's pretty odd, but never mind. I still maintain that the source should probably stay at Preston's comment though. It's just more factually accurate, considering that Preston has no medical authority. It currently reads as though there is a source confirming that Kawasaki causes seizures, which is incorrect. People will be reading Wikipedia at this time, and may get the wrong impression from the way that is worded. Sky83 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
One more point, from reading that source, it doesn't cite Kelly Preston as saying about the side effects, the article just happens to state it, the only thing credited to Preston is the acknowledgement that Jett had Kawasaki. I'm not sure E Online is a reliable medical source to be honest. The sentence and the placing of the source still seems misleading to me. Again, I don't mean to be pedantic, but it doesn't look right! Sky83 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The source sentence says "Preston had said her son suffered from Kawasaki disease, which can cause a variety of painful side effects, including seizures, and sometimes lead to heart problems." To me, that sentence reads as attributed to Preston. As I said, there are other sources out there from earlier interviews. I'll try to find one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought when I first read it, but that's not how it actually does read. It's a small detail, but again, if the description of side effects are going to be attributed to Preston, there should be a source that says she said it and that one doesn't. To avoid confusion, I think it's a good thing you're looking for another source, and since Preston mentioned Kawasaki officially, it's likely that there is a good source out there that actually contains a quote. Good luck :). Sky83 (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I made some adjustments to the sentence, using what I could find quickly. Perhaps this will clear up the issue for the time being. As I said, more information will be forthcoming in the next day or so, I think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh that looks good. I agree, in a week from now that whole section will likely look totally different. For now it's just best to be as accurate as is possible and it definitely looks a lot better now. Sky83 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems the police reports have been leaked that have John Travolta admitting his son was autistic. Anonymous (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.155.151 (talk)
"It seems"?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for new/unregistered users lock

I really think that an update tag needs to be placed at the TOP of the article, and although I'll conceed to the current event tag being put at the top of the article, what's currently there is speculation. I believe that it should be listed that the causes are NOT yet known. He has been known to have seizures but the exact cause of death is not known yet. Wikipedia is supposed to represent a NPOV, not a tabloid slant.

Also, Given the sensitivity of the death of his son, speculation and the Travoltas' involvement in the controversial religious movement of Scientology, I think that's enough to lock the article. That's just my 2 cents though. Thanks!WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a valid request, but it was done late Friday afternoon. [6] Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not want the article deleted. Instead, I would like the autopsy report attached to the article. If the autopsy report documents that Jett was not on anti-seizure medication and had a history of seizures then the article would provide evidence of the harm caused by the teachings of Scientology which teaches that psychiatry and psychiatric drugs are evil. Alternatively, if the autopsy report documents that Jett was taking anti-seizure medication, then Jett's death would not cast a shadow on the teachings of Scientology.72.104.44.152 (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. No one is even considering deleting this article.
2. There is no chance that the autopsy report will be "attached" to this article. The findings indicated no foul play.
3. There is no expectation that the autopsy report would ever be released, news reports said results will be released to the Travoltas.
4. Despite your apparent ignorance of the wonders of modern medicine, not every individual with a history of seizures is on, is automatically given, or requires anti-seizure medication, which is, contrary to your belief, between a patient and his or her doctor, and not subject to your approval. Nor is it indicated for each and every person with a history of seizures.
4. If this young man was not on anti-seizure meds does not indicate that had he been, he would be alive. If he was on anti-seizure meds, they apparently didn't prevent this death.
5. Anti-seizure medications are not psychiatric drugs, they are prescribed by consulting neurologists. Epilepsy is not a psychiatric disorder, it is a neurological one.
6. This death does not provide evidence of the harm caused by teachings of Scientology, unless you can prove conclusively that this young man was prescribed anti-seizure meds, that he was not being given those meds, and that the reason is because the Church of Scientology took proactive measures to prevent him from receiving them.
7. Kindly do not interpose your opinion about Scientology onto this event, expect the Wikipedia article to help support your viewpoint about it, or expect that it can be used to indict that particular belief, its adherents or its effects.
8. There is a myriad of websites available on which you can expound upon your viewpoints about Scientology, this is not a forum page, it is for discussing improvements to an article.

Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so hasty to condemn this medication topic. Mr. Travolta himself has put the issue on the table, after announcing he used religious "detox" on his son. No need for censorship here.Ykral (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No one is censoring anything, there is a hard and clear line between censorship and fringe/conspiracy theory exploration that would constitute WP:BLP violations, original research and synthesis. The issue is beyond the scope of this article and I see very few options for it that doesn't constitute POV pushing and investigative "journalism". It isn't going to be included because there is nothing from reliable sources that will support this. There is a vast difference between whatever constitutes "religious detox" and the question of this boy receiving anti-seizure medications. There is also a vast difference between an encyclopedic biography and an anti-Scientology forum/bulletin board. It isn't going to be included until an outside, reliable, respected third party source publishes conclusions about it. Don't use the talk page as a POV forum. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 projects

Noticed that the John Travolta page reference to the 2009 project Old Dogs states that his costars will be Robin Williams and Bernie Mac. But Bernie Mac passed away in August 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.188.153 (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why, yes. Yes he did. And if you would check the article Old Dogs (film), you would see that it states that it was Bernie Mac's last role before his death. Films often have final appearances. Have you heard of The Dark Knight? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Weird omissions

This article feels like it was white washed by an agency or something... Not one mention of Scientology? How about the (mostly) unrelated kiss photo? All a person has to do is google "john travolta kiss" to see how big a deal that was. Why are other articles about actors and politicians so thorough and even handed and not this one? --32.147.10.205 (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you didn't really read the article very thoroughly. Otherwise, you would have seen "Travolta also starred in Battlefield Earth (2000) based on a work of science fiction by L. Ron Hubbard, in which he played the leader of a group of aliens that enslaves humanity on a bleak future Earth. The film received almost universally negative reviews and did very poorly at the box office. The film won a Razzie Award for Worst Film of the Year at the 2000 awards. Travolta, who joined Scientology in 1975 and endorses Hubbard's teachings, had hoped that the film would be well received and be the first in a series of Hubbard film adaptations."
I'm fairly certain that qualifies as covering his involvement to some degree. You also don't particularly characterize this article in comparison to "other articles and politicians" very well. Some articles are quite thorough and some are much less detailed. As for "the kiss", Wikipedia does not tend to publish gossip and innuendo. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
there is a reason this article remains a C and not a B, GA or (maybe in the far, far future) a FA, and a tertiary reference to the faith that is so closely identified with the subject (only less so than L Ron or, perhaps Cruise) is a clear example. I'm not talking about muckraking or calling out his faith, but it would provide a complete picture ofthe man if we could include more information on what's guided his personal life --and it doesn't have to be spun in either a positive/negative light, obviously. The current mention is laughably brief, especially when you consider how important to him it was to make the film. As for the kiss, google it and tell me that there's any possible way to deny it happened, other than the uncertain context --the undeniable fact that it happened brings up why it was so heavily covered. The logic there is like saying you can't write about Il Divo's supposed mob machinations while in office; regardless of whether it was true, the incident colored the news. You could say the same thing about whether Mel Gibson or Kramer sincerely believed their own verbal gaffe/rants. The point there was it became a significant moment in the career, for good or bad. Of the two issues, the very light touch on his personal faith in Scientology is the most glaring weakness. --32.150.31.163 (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
No one is saying "the kiss" didn't happen. But what are actually the facts about it that make it important enough for this article? No facts at all, other than the people involved. Everything else that made it "so heavily covered" is speculation, innuendo and gossip. Wikipedia doesn't do those. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is a reason this article does not yet have a higher quality rating, but it is not solely because Travolta's involvement in Scientology isn't covered in-depth. It's because his entire biography isn't covered in sufficient depth to warrant a higher rating. No one at all has said the coverage is sufficient, but - you said in your first post that there was not a single mention of Scientology in the entire article, and factually, that is not true. You also claimed it was whitewashed, and if that means that gossip, rumor, innuendo and slurring is absent, then that is true. But it is not whitewashed to prevent the mention of Travolta's involvement in his religious choice. Outside the death of his son, it may be the more better covered aspect of the article. A lot of care was taken to respect WP:BLP concerns regarding Jett Travolta's death because of liability issues otherwise. That same principle applies to ascribing any importance to some tabloid coverage of what is essentially an ambiguous kiss done by someone who does seem to kiss others more frequently than the silent straight world would like. We cannot ascribe meaning to that here, despite what tabloids did with it then. I'd have to see clear evidence that ambiguous photo had any impact on Travolta's career. After Battlefield Earth, Travolta's career did take a bit of a plunge. The films over the next 3-4 years were not big hits or bring critical acclaim - Domestic Disturbance, Swordfish, Austin Powers in Goldmember, Basic, Ladder 49, A Love Song for Bobby Long, The Punisher and Be Cool were not huge, though some of them were quite good (IMO). "The kiss" photo was published in 2006 and following that, up to now, his films have been well received and in most cases huge hits. Wild Hogs, Hairspray, Bolt and Old Dogs have all been wildly successful. It could be argued that the kiss photo had a positive effect, except there is no evidence it had any effect, and certainly not a negative one. I would agree that the article is in need of expansion in all areas, but there is little chance that the kiss photo would be part of it due to the innuendo and tabloidy gossip nature of it in absence of anything else. WP:BLP prevents that from happening. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It really does seem like a whitewash. Have you threatened by his lawyers? I've never heard of Travolta threatening legal action on the gay rumors, unlike Tom Cruise76.119.163.157 (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that John Travolta has threatened legal action against Carrie Fisher for allegations that he is gay [7] for example -that allegation is attributable and therefore valid in this context to be recorded?--AndyCPrivate (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth

In Battlefield Earth Travolta did not portray an alien. Rather he led a group pf haumens rebelling against alien hegemony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.199.141 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are mistaken, perhaps it was the make-up. Travolta did play Terl, one of the aliens along with Forrest Whitaker. Actor Barry Pepper played the leader of the rebels. -- Horkana (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not an article written for People magazine

--32.147.10.205, I really do not understand what it is you "feel" has been White washed. You seem to be implying that Travolta lives some sort of really weird, SECRET life, far different from the one he lives, which the public is aware. Until we can cite ACTUAL RELIABLE sources to any so-called weird life or "unspoken" whatever’s relating to Travolta, nothing of the sort belongs in Travolta's Wikipedia article. Yes, he is heavily involved in Scientology, and YES, many consider Scientology to be a cult. However,,,,,,,,,,,, Travolta himself has NEVER done anything WEIRD or off colour to justify placing it in his Wikipedia article, at least, not anything that can be verified. As far as "the kiss" goes, which you are referring, Wikipedia is NOT a gossip column. Yes, there was one picture of Travolta kissing another man but NEVER an explanation. Wikipedia is not the venue to "SPIN" an inference as to what "the kiss" was all about. Wikipedia is also not going to imply Travolta is a "closet" homosexual. You may believe Travolta is a "closet" homosexual, and if you do, you may write about it, just not here in his Wikipedia article. --Irshgrl500 18:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need to spin or explain the kiss photo. However, it was and is a major public event for this figure, and should be included in his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.184.154 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Error on Jett's birthdate

He was born in 1993, not in 1992 as the article states. This is wrong on Kelly Preston's page, too 99.138.172.254 (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jet's birthdate is correct at 1992

My source was wrong. The correct year is 1992. 99.138.172.254 (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"C" rated article

The overall "tone" of this Wikipedia article is slanted and presents Travolta in an almost negative light. The original contributor and main editors (if there is in fact more than one) seem to have a problem with Travolta and his membership or involvement in Scientology. I am sorry but like it or not, Travolta and his wife are Scientologists, and it is NOT up to the contributors of Wikipedia to slant this fact in a negative light. For example; the structure of the article being sectioned into "downturn" and "resurgence,” this is simply NOT necessary. Why? Many, many actors have gone through periods of having box office failures in their careers, only to star in a box office success, which puts their career back on the map. Also, there is entirely too much verbiage on "speculative" notions of Travolta's life. At times, this article almost reads like something out of People magazine. Sorry, until there are edits made to "tone" down the biased slants, I give this article a C-. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshgrl500 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry! I forgot to sign!--Irshgrl500 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshgrl500 (talk • contribs)

I really don't see where you determined that. In fact, Scientology is mentioned twice in the article, and is done so in a totally neutral way: "Travolta has been a practitioner of Scientology since 1975 when he was given the book Dianetics while filming the movie The Devil's Rain in Durango, Mexico." and "Travolta, who became a Scientologist in 1975 and endorses Hubbard's teachings, had hoped that the film would be well received and be the first in a series of Hubbard film adaptations." Both of those statements are factual and neutral. Battlefield Earth is considered one of the worst films ever made, sorry, but it's true. Travolta backed the film and starred in it and it flopped completely. We do include notable flops in these articles, not just in this one. There isn't much else to say about it. We don't go into extreme detail regarding someone's religion unless that person is primarily involved in that religion. Travolta is an actor, membership and practice is all that can reasonably be included. It's disengenuous and unfounded to suggest the article is negatively slanted because he is a Scientologist. That's basically bunk. It is proper to report negative career points vs. positive ones, and Travolta has in fact discussed that his career was all but washed up until Quentin Tarantino cast him in Pulp Fiction. That is a bottom line fact. Further, I see nothing speculative about his life. Everything about his personal life is completely sourced and written in a neutral manner. I really don't see your issues, unless you came into it expecting to read it in a negative manner and thus found it that way. For the record, a C quality article has to do with something other than a "grade". It has to do with comprehensiveness and sourcing. Your grade has nothing to do with the quality assessment, which is for something else entirely. What you say here is contradicted by what you said in the section "Weird omissions". The truth is, the article isn't biased, on either point. A lot of effort has gone into avoiding that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Travolta's help to Haiti

John travolta says he was gonna deliver 4000 tons of help in haiti with his own boeing plane, but instead we discover that it was only 4 tons and the reste of the plane was full of scientologist who came to convert the most Haitian possible in this "exeptionnal opportunity" for them to expand themselves in the carribeans. Why does the article doesn't talk about it ? Isn't there any freedom of press in Haiti ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.6.174.244 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Should we add this under philanthropy and then add another sub heading controversy ? --Polysophia (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I have seen no source to say 4000 tons, that's a lot of aid, I doubt his private plane would hold it. No, there is no controversy here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

LGBT?

-- Text has been removed as a possible libel on the basis of policy on biographies --

Can you provide any evidence that has made any statements regarding his own sexual orientation or that he has given any opinion or support regarding LGBT? The picture of him kissing Jeff Kathrein is all the media have when they claim he is bisexual or homosexual. Jim Michael (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This article smells of the evils of scientology. It's much shorter than articles for similar actors and seems as though anything negative or less positive has been removed. Plus of course comments like the above. Homosexuality is not a cause for claiming libel and to suggest otherwise is stating that being homosexual is somehow negative. It's time for Wikipedia to relocate its business and servers (presently in Florida, USA) to a more normal country where they may be less open to censorship and attacks from cults like Scientology.--37.182.43.223 (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Son's death

i thought jett hit his head on A bathtub help,please?--71.67.179.158 (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

10,000 what?

The Personal life section says that "Travolta and Preston donated 10,000 to the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund while on a trip to South Africa." 10,000 what? US dollars? South African rand? Cows? Brick houses? Children? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL I was about to start my own section on the very same point. By pure happenstance I looked at the end of the page and found the same question. So what is the answer to the 10,000? The fact that it's been two weeks and no edit has been made, I am a testament to that, is indictment to the block on this page. See WP:OWN to get my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.16.52 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Neither of you is particularly likely to get a response unless you add an {{editrequest}} to this page. Only then may other editors be alerted that there may be a problem. WP:OWN is irrelevant since the article is more or less permanently protected against vandalism. However, if you care to do some research, then add the above template, citing what the 10,000 was, it will be flagged and fixed. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 23:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It is sourced, someone just forgot to add the $ dollar sign. I must say, I'm completely in the dark on how ownership figures in to editors not noticing this post. Was it turned down? Was it dismissed here? Nope. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from RainForest1767, 3 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under his Television section, I think the name of the character in Emergency! is Chuck, not Casey.

RainForest1767 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Not done}} You need to state exactly the text you want added or changed. --Selket Talk 22:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I got it. --Selket Talk 22:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit page re Music singles

{{Edit semi-protected}} Under "singles" the first nine music singles listed were actually recorded in 1976 (per itunes)

what is listed: "You Set My Dreams To Music" (1969) "Goodnight Mr. Moon" (1969) "Rainbows" (1969) "Settle Down" (1970) "Moonlight Lady" (1971) "Right Time Of The Night" (1972) "Big Trouble" (1972) "What Would They Say" (1973) "Back Doors Crying" (1973)

suggested change: "You Set My Dreams To Music" (1976) "Goodnight Mr. Moon" (1976) "Rainbows" (1976) "Settle Down" (1976) "Moonlight Lady" (1976) "Right Time Of The Night" (1976) "Big Trouble" (1976) "What Would They Say" (1976) "Back Doors Crying" (1976)


Angilosi (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Angilosi (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I couldn't find your 1976 date in itunes; could you provide a specific link? I did see a 1969 date for "you set my dreams to music" as a video on youtube, so it is possible that itunes is refering to a recompilation of some sort. Celestra (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your reply. Here is a link to the album on amazon : http://www.amazon.com/You-Set-My-Dreams-Music/dp/B00005AR70 and also song facts- both 1976 as the dates. Also, John Travolta was born in 1954 and would of only been 15 years old in 1969. Angilosi (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit page re Music singles

Hello! :) I have a few more edit suggestions based on research:

What is listed on John's wiki page under "Singles": "Can't Let You Go" (1975)

Suggested change: "Can't Let You Go" (1977)

See link to album for confirmation: http://www.discogs.com/John-Travolta-Cant-Let-You-Go/master/153534

Suggested additions: "Take A Chance" (1983) #3 (duet with Olivia Newton-John) "Two Sleepy People" (1997) (duet w/Carly Simon)

ADDITIONS: Also, under "Singles" John Travolta also recorded a duet with Carly Simon "Two Sleepy People" in 1997 http://www.amazon.com/Film-Noir-Carly-Simon/dp/B000002VTP


Also, "Take A Chance" was a duet John Travolta recorded with Olivia Newton-John from Two Of A Kind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivia_Newton-John_discography http://heycelebrities.com/the-john-travolta-biography/306.html

Thank you Angilosi (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


It would be advisable to remove the single "Hooker Madness" from his singles discography, as I could find no record of such a track coming from Travolta in 1983, after extensive research. There is also no source credited on the Wiki page. The existence of a track with that name would appear to be a minor urban legend that has spread thanks to its inclusion on Wikipedia. 

- ReverendFlash  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reverendflash (talk • contribs) 19:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Grease" soundtrack chart position

{{editsemiprotected}} In the album discography section, the US charting position for the "Grease" soundtrack is listed as " - " which I believe is the standard symbol for "non-charting".

According to every available source, including Wikipedia's own page on this, its actual chart position in the US was 1.

Have I misunderstood something?

If not could I suggest replacing the "-" with "1" in the table.

Many thanks. 81.141.162.173 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How odd! Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

John Travolta TV ad from the sixties

I've found this old TV commercial/ad from the late 60's, early 70's, showing a very young Travolta. If somebody would like to add this to the wiki page, the video is available on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRKRJzQN3jQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.24.33.64 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

20. Comment on Adding Movie Reference

John Travolta co-stared with William Shatner and Anton Lavey in the 1975 film The Devil's Rain. I think that a sentence referencing this fact would fit nicely into the second paragraph of the segment "Career: Early Career."

With a star cast like this, and it being one of Travolta's early works, such a reference is acceptable, do not you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.109.49 (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

John Travolta Revised His Age After Pulp Fiction

After Pulp Fiction rebooted his career, Travolta took two years off his age for publicity purposes, not an unusual thing for an actor or actress to do, of course. He was actually born in 1952, not 1954. Hard to find substantiation for this, though, since the Internet didn't really catch on until after Pulp Fiction came along and early Travolta biographies, etc. are hard to come across. Does anyone have any reliable material from earlier in his career mentioning the actual date of his birth? It would be amusing for his Wikipedia article to be a lone "beacon of truth" in this regard, especially for those who used to be a year younger than Travolta but are now a year older. Upsmiler (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2012

Please include references to the possibility of this actor being gay and photos of him kissing a man: http://gawker.com/5122788/travoltas-rumored-gay-lover-discovered-dead-son

Whilst such a powerful man can manage the mainstream media and remove such references, wikipedia should not be that easy to control. There is no reason his page is protected, other than to remove rumours that he is Gay.

Which in itself if fine, but less so if he sells himself and earns from the idea that he is not. 88.16.70.6 (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done "This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it." In addition, "Gawker" is generally not considered a reliable source for allegations of sexual orientation. Please read and understand the various Wikipedia policies on sexual orientation and biographies of living people, and gain WP:CONSENSUS that any such changes meet Wikipedia policies, before making another request. --joe deckertalk to me 02:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

LGBT Redux

Alright, now that there is a once upon a time (I assume a lawsuit soured their friendship anyway) life long friend stating he is gay (Carrie Fisher), Two Masseuses (male) accusing him of sexual assault, and photos of him kissing another man that is rumored to be his boyfriend, can we PLEASE have a section that states 'homosexual rumors' at least that details these things and his reactions to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.244.228 (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources (and I mean very good, solid, sources) discussing the rumours? If not, then the answer is no. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that Wikipedia never contains unsourced controversial material on biographies of living people. It also emphasises that Wikipedia is not a gossip or scandal monger. It does not assist in spreading rumours. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this an applicable source? __meco (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
It might be, but it doesn't say anything about these rumours regarding Travolta. So I'm unclear how it'll help. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Is part of the issue here that we haven't made a concerted effort to collate the various sources that are brought forth on this issue? If so, perhaps we could undertake such an effort? __meco (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
No, that would be original synthesis, which is not permitted. If you want this article to state something, particularly if it is controversial and potentially libellous of a living person, you need to an exemplary reliable source to say it first. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It does not lead the way in conducting investigation or research. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you misunderstood my suggestion. I'm not advocating adding anything about Travolta's sexuality into the article, I'm talking about here on the talk page. If we could have all the references that have been put forward listed and the see which of these meet the criteria for being reliable sources, we might be able to present this matter in a well-founded and considered way in the article. __meco (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. But remember the principles of WP:BLP apply to talk pages too. We don't want a collection of speculative and trashy gossip attempting to add up to something. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Certainly. If the assumption exists that a source could be a reliable source (or definitely is) then we could gather them all and discuss them collectively, perhaps refer some to WP:RSN, immediately discard others, and so forth. Then emerging sources could easily be compared to the standard we have already set. __meco (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Might be trashy gossip but the gay allegations have been covered in so many reliable publications. If anything is looks more sus the fact this article hides it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

      • This is so ridiculous. John Travolta isn't gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.202.236.94 (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
News/Newspapers
Books and magazines

Lawsuit modification

I removed the rebuff by Johns lawyer(s) but I did leave the citation reference in-line. Woods01 (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've put it back in. I don't follow your logic that the accusation should be mentioned without any mention of Travolta's denial of it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

dyslexia

'I may be wrong, and correct me if I am, but I've been a fan of John Travolta since Saturday Night Fever and I have a vague recollection of hearing something about him being dyslectic. Can anyone confirm if this is true. I think if it is, that might explain the Idina Menzel mispronunciation.

thank you

Ursula Paul New Rochelle NY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.196.118 (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

John Travolta, Pilot.

The original Wikipedia article on Mr. Travolta lists him as a "private pilot". This is inaccurate. Mr. Travolta is a rated Airline Transport Pilot. Please forgive me if this is submitted via the wrong avenue.

Steven J Robeson, LPN, EMT-P, ACLS, PALS (ret'd) Gunnery Sergeant, U.S.Marine Corps(ret'd) 502 Sharp Springs Road Winchester, TN 37398-1456 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenrobeson (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, Inc, www.ellisisland.org. Ship's manifest for the "Nord-America", 23 June 1904, line 10. Salvatore Travolta further stated that he was married and that his closest relative in the United States was his brother Giuseppe Travolta, who was living at 338 West 28th Street in New York City.
  2. ^ Meg Grant (February 2005). "Night Moves". Reader's Digest. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Travolta/Archive_1&oldid=1136851995"