Jump to content

Talk:Brad Pitt

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fergie41 (talk | contribs) at 06:08, 17 September 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleBrad Pitt has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed
December 3, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 31, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
June 9, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Turian, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on September 1, 2009.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Dubious tag in the lead

Just to explain ... the dubious tag in the lead relates to the claim that this was how Pitt achieved fame, and is not a claim that he isn't famous (you knew I meant that, right?). Can we think of a better way of wording whatever this sentence is meant to mean? SP-KP (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded it. Also, when stating this in the edit summary, make sure to check the source out, before adding such tags in the article; Like the USA Today article states, "He [Pitt] didn't mention Jolie in the news conference, but in the October issue of 'Esquire'... Pitt says the pair [he and Jolie] will marry 'when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able'." --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry about the source deletion - that was one of those complete mental lapses - when I went back to the article and re-read it, the quote jumped right out at me, so I've no idea why I couldn't find it first time. SP-KP (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its alright, everybody makes mistakes. Just... be careful next time. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good actor?

Brad Pitt has only starred in two good films - A River Runs Through It (in which he is excellent) and Fight Club. He is an actor who showed alot of early talent but unfortunately his career became blighted by Hollywood success and adulation and he has done nothing for a long time worthwhile of note. How is it that he continues to attract such publicity when his acting days are effectively over? And, also what sort of a life is it for an actor when all you do of note is turn up to film awards and talk about your children? I think if he was serious about his profession, he would seek to avoid the limelight and get back to his acting roots - maybe seek a role in a small indy movie. Compare Brad Pitt to more mature actors like Ben Affleck, Jude Law, Matt Damon and Sean Penn and you don't see that the same publicity-seeking crap about them as you do about BP and his wife (and, when it comes to looks and talent, Robin Wright-Penn is definitely more accomplished than Angelina Jolie). Ivankinsman (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this comes your point-of-view and doesn't warrant anything whatsoever towards the article. This talkpage is for discussing improvements for the topic, not criticism. If you feel that his acting is not "there", it would be best to discuss this on message boards and any such sort, but not here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omission in the article

Brad Pitt's participation in the movie The Fountaindirected by Darren Aronofsky has been omited in the article. See the article The Fountain on the movie for reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.15.98 (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was scheduled to appear in the movie, but dropped out of production. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change profile picture of brad pitt..

Change profile picture of brad pitt.. post some picture where he looks good and not very old. there are lot of recent pics in which he looks good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.54.149 (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? That's his appearance right now. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling

Under the heading Other Projects, in the penultimate sentence, Daniel Pearl’s name is misspelled as Daniel Peal. I recommend that the misspelling be corrected. Bluebird7773 (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Bluebird7773 03APR2009[reply]

Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable footnotes

I gave the text another look and made a bunch of smaller changes. During that, I made the troubling discovery that several of the footnotes seem to be entirely unrelated to the statements they are attached to. Some of the sources clearly offer no information on what they are supposed to be citing. Examples:

  • [1]:"Brad Pitt Biography". People. 2. http://www.people.com/people/brad_pitt/biography/0,,20004328_10,00.html. Retrieved on 2008-05-16.
    • The source for him being a member in the Sigma Chi fraternity, but I can't find that anywhere on the four pages of this People biography.
      • Has been replaced.
  • [5]: "Hello Magazine Profile - Brad Pitt". Hello!. Hello! Ltd. http://www.hellomagazine.com/profiles/bradpitt/. Retrieved on 2008-05-15.
    • This link includes no information whatsoever about his parents, about him being a conservative Southern Baptist, or him acting in several fraternity shows, for which it is used in the article.
      • Has been replaced.
  • [90]:"Jennifer Aniston's 'Plan C': A New Film Company". People. 2008-04-01. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20187368,00.html. Retrieved on 2008-05-15.
    • The source for him being reluctant to discuss Plan B, however, no mention about this at all in the link.
      • That source I messed up on; I "accidentally" was re-arranging the sources in the section.

These are just three random samples I found coincidentally. I wouldn't be surprised, if under closer inspection, several more of these fake sources could be found. EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a check on the sources. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding, Pitt and Aniston, I found this transcript, would that help? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I did a scan, and everything seems to check out fine. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Brangelina stub article/Now full article

As I stated to Dalejenkins, who is linking to this stub article, ‎this article was redirected in the first place because it would have been a stub, and because the Celebrity section of the Supercouple article has more information on it than this stub does. It is a stub not likely to be expanded upon any time soon, unless Dalejenkins is going to expand it. Plus, these types of articles have a tendency to be targeted for deletion. Just look at the problems the TomKat and Posh and Becks articles have faced with that. Though the TomKat article has not yet had an official deletion debate, it did recently have its named changed to cater to those thinking about deleting it. Dalejenkins says that the Brangelina article should be linked to even though it is a stub. I ask how?

Dalejenkins is linking to this stub throughout the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie articles, when the stub says absolutely nothing about the couple that their articles already do not say. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer a stub - no longer a problem. Just because somebody MAY target the article for deletion, it doesn't mean we should ignore it. Dalejenkins | 21:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated on your talk page, I still do not see the point, since all you did was take information already found in their individual articles and divide it up into the Brangelina article. Notice that the Celebrity section of the Supercouple article about Pitt and Jolie at least mentions a little bit of stuff about their relationship/thoughts about their relationship not already found in either of their individual articles? That is the point of having supercouple articles and articles on different topics (besides their notability). Even if you add the bit from the Supercouple article in about them, it does not stop the fact that the Brangelina article is very redundant.
I am not going to redirect it or seek its deletion, but you should be very concerned about other editors wanting to do so or going about doing so. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the Name section, I see you already took a bit from the Supercouple article about this. But it is still like I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then if you're not going to delete it, then there's no need to woory. We'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it. IMO, it passes WP:NOTE. Dalejenkins | 23:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It having valid sources which could be seen by some editors here as being a notable article is not the problem.AND YOU NEED TO PUT THE FULL FILMOGRAPHY SO GET OUT YOUR ASS ANG GET ON IT The problems with that article is what I stated on your talk page and at their talk pages. Plenty of celebrity couples could have couple articles here if valid sources are mostly all that is needed for that; that is not the point. Does the fact that the media dubbed Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie "Brangelina" and a supercouple mean that they are notable enough as a couple to have their own Wikipedia couple article? If so, that is beside the point. Even if they are also a notable couple for their humanitarianism. If having the Brangelina article was done to put most of the information about that couple there as a way to cut down on information about the couple in their individual articles and have their individual articles conform to not being too long, then you would have more of a valid reason for letting the Brangelina article exist.
I am not crossing any bridge on this. That will be you. Linking to that article in Pitt and Jolie's articles is beyond redundant and really not needed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also commenting at Talk:Angelina Jolie. In a nutshell, there is nothing in the Brangelina article that is not already in either the Pitt or the Jolie articles. Essentially this is linking to an abbreviated form of Pitt or Jolie articles. There's really no point in doing so. Rossrs (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both, Flyer and Rossrs. I see no point in having this included in the article. This really all seems like point-of-view and the "Brangelina" article seems like cruft, if you ask me. I do, however, have intentions on nominating Brad Pitt's article to FAC, but with this issue right now, I'm afraid this will become a problem at FAC, and probably would not want to go through it, until this issue is resolved. I see that Dalejenkins' edits were reverted from Angelina Jolie's article, though, I do hope it was for the thread that was raised at the talkpage, not because her article is FA. I believe the "Brangelina" thing should be removed as well from Pitt's article, but I want to see what other's say, regarding this. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to clarify, as I was the most recent one to remove it from Angelina Jolie : essentially it was removed because of the points made in the thread, and because there was no consensus. I mentioned the fact that the Jolie article is FA. That alone is not reason enough to object to the addition of new material, especially as Jolie is still very active, but it does demonstrate that the article has been subjected to fairly close scrutiny. I feel it should be removed from this article as well, and if you are planning on nominating this for FA, I think it is the type of 'crufty' detail that reviewers could comment on, especially if it's not resolved. Rossrs (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I meant about Dalejenkins' edits being reverted on Jolie's article. I already removed Dalejenkins' edits. Though, I did want to remove it yesterday, but I wanted to see what other's thought, regarding this. I guess the decision was not to have this included in either articles. Believe me, things like this would warrant users to oppose the article in getting promoted. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage all editors working on and or watching the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie articles to also watch the Brangelina article; just like these two articles, it is subject to vandalism and unsourced claims...and even more so because it is not protected from IP editors. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rusty_Ryan_(2nd_nomination) Ocean's eleven Brad Pitt character

FYI Ikip (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic or atheist

This article is in both the category "American atheists" and "American agnostics." Which is it?--Marcus Brute (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He claims both source. --58.174.75.123 (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This photo gallery seems to be appropriate material for the external links section of the Brad Pitt page. (Shera23 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

http://blogs.amctv.com/photo-galleries/brad-pitts-sexiest-shirtless-scenes/intro.php

No, the section is not for that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Credit for Freddy's Nightmares Series

Brad Pitt starred in an episode of Freddy's Nightmares: A Nightmare On Elm Street The Series entitled 'Black Ticket' in 1989 as the character Rick Austin. The IMDB link is:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0582734/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.228.94 (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has been added. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brad_Pitt&oldid=314485058"