Talk:Brad Pitt/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

English Ancestry

It states that Brad is of English Ancestry. Is there interest in taking this further? On his mother's side, he is decendent of two large families, the Cokers and the Ogles. The Cokers came to the U.S. during the Revolutionary War. Family lore claims that the first Coker was captured from a trading vessel and forced to be part of the British Army. Upon arriving in the new land, he promptly went over to the Revolutionary soldiers and told them were the British were camped out. In return for his actions, he was awarded a lot of land. On the Ogle side, it is much better. The Ogles come from British and French royalty - decendent of Charlemagne. Also, the Ogles are all over Sevierville - where the Partons are from. So, Brad is certainly linked through a list of aunts and uncles to Dolly Parton. --Kainaw (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


You have the name of Brad Pitt's former spouse, Jennifer Aniston. However there should also be the information added for his current family and there status as well. He is now with his partner Angelina Jolie and their three children, Maddox, Zahara and Shiloh. Is there a reason that this info is only visible at the end of page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Simple - Angelina is not a spouse. So, she doesn't belong in a list of former and current spouses. There is an abnormally large section describing his personal relationship with her. When (if) they wed, she will be added to the list of spouses. --Kainaw (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
So i changed the section name to relationships so AJ may be included bc they have 3 kids and are about to get a 4th kids from Vietnam( according to,,20013922,00.html).written by 16:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want it to be "relationships", you need to include practically every actress he's been paired up with. There's a reason that the women he dates demand that he not make a movie paired with another actress. --Kainaw (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is Angelina Jolie listed as his spouse? He's been engaged before (Gwyneth Paltrow), if Jolie is listed then why not others?

Oscar Winner?

Brad Pitt is listed as one of the three producers for the film "The Departed". and when a movie wins Best Picture at the Oscars that specific award is given to the producers of said film. so, since "The Departed" won, wouldn't/shouldn't Pitt be listed as an Academy Award winner for producing the film? i mean this as a legitimate question, b/c i honestly don't know. Calric03 18:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Academy set up specific rules where they essentially get to choose the producer(s) who get the award, up to 3 people. This was in reaction to the growing lists of producers on various films, and was actually fairly controversial. Unfortunately, Scorsese and Pitt were not chosen as 'official' producers in this vein...only Graham King. Try this link:
Perminisconious 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My reversion on 23:31, March 23, 2007

In addition to reverting vandalism, I removed a link to PressArchive. This web site is blacklisted per WikiMedia blacklist. I have no knowledge of this web site, or the reason it's blacklisted, so I'm unwilling to alter that. --Celain 06:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad Pitt's Body Odor

My Post: Brad Pitt has frequently been mentioned as having exceptionally bad body odor. In 2004, Pitt was voted world's smelliest celebrity in a poll conducted by Swedish showbiz expert Mikael Jagerbrand. In 2006, Brad Pitt was voted one of the world's unsexiest men because of his atrocious B.O. Apparently his odor stems from a failure to bathe or wash his laundry appropriately. When co-workers on the set of Troy complained of his foul odor, Brad purchased a 3,600 dollar Calvin Klein shirt rather than showering.

Response: Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Brad Pitt. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 02:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My Response: Excuse me, how is that vandalism? How is that unhelpful and unconstructive information? Those are two widely-reported verifiable polls. The information is clearly relevant. Is this a fan site? Can't we write anything other than glowing praise? Is this a teen mag or an encyclopedia?

As somebody mentioned, this is like a fanzine article. Nobody can argue my edits are not RELEVANT or VERIFIABLE. Do the studios or agents pay people to censor these articles? Gee, I have a sneaking suspicion.

Coolest8675309 03:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced information to an article is considered vandalism. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. If you had added the information with references, it would not be considered vandalism. However, keep in mind that just because something is on the web doesn't make it a reference. There is plenty of junk out there. So, try adding the information with references. --Kainaw (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, any references must adhere to WP:RS. --Yamla 19:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Based on the suggestions to include references, I posted: Brad Pitt has frequently been mentioned as having exceptionally bad body odor. In 2004, Pitt was voted world's smelliest celebrity in a poll conducted by Swedish showbiz expert Mikael Jagerbrand.[1] In 2006, Brad Pitt was voted one of the world's unsexiest men because of his atrocious hygene.[2] Apparently his odor stems from an inability to bathe or wash his laundry. When co-workers on the set of Troy complained of his foul odor, Brad purchased a 3,600 dollar Calvin Klein shirt rather than showering.[3]

The response:

Nuvola apps important.svg

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to Brad Pitt, is considered vandalism and may result in a block. Note that the sources you are claiming are unreliable as per WP:RS, as has already been pointed out. --Yamla 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My response: What?? Wow, this is reaching the height of ridiculousness!!! First of all WP:RS clearly states it “is a guideline, not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages.” Second, how are the sources I provided not reliable or verifiable? Just cut and paste the section that explains that. Both the polls I mentioned were widely reported and published by many newspapers worldwide. Are you saying these newspapers are not reliable (see list below)?

Why is it appropriate to include a poll that lists Pitt as sexiest man, but not appropriate to include a poll in which he was voted unsexiest man. I think you should read WP:NPOV. That stands for NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW and it is an OFFICIAL POLICY, unlike WP:RS. A neutral point of view, such as, for example, a person who is not paid to watch over actors’ bios might have. Are you by any chance PAID to watch over actors’ bios? Mmmm???

Here are just a few of the PUBLISHED articles in RESPECTABLE newspapers worldwide: Etc.


Near as I can tell, not one of these is independent. Also, please note that my account name is Yamla. If you can find a common consensus that Mr. Pitt is generally regarded as a particularly unsexy man, it would of course be appropriate to add it here. One unsourced claim in a newspaper, republished in a number of other papers, does not meet our threshold, however. --Yamla 00:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, what? General consensus? We are talking about polls; kinda like the poll that said he was sexy, which seems to meet your threshold. Well, there are two other polls. One in 2004 that said he had the worst B.O. among celebrities. Another in 2006 that listed him among the unsexiest men because of his B.O. Are we on the same page now?

Now, are you saying these polls did not take place? They were reported, printed, in innumerable newspapers worldwide.

Are you saying these polls are not relevant? Why does the search “Brad Pitt Body Odor” yield 41,700 hits in google? Why does the search “Brad Pitt unsexiest man” get 52,400 hits? Those numbers clearly prove those two polls are relevant.

Yamla what are you saying? -->Coolest8675309 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have not yet read WP:RS. Until you do so, please do not waste our time any more. --Yamla 19:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll also note that the search, "Brad Pitt elephant man", results in 252,000 hits. This is why we demand reliable sources, as has been pointed out over and over again to you. --Yamla 19:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha how about this - "Brad Pitt bitch" gets 717,000 hits. So I guess we now start adding links to web sites showing how Brad Pitt Denies Being Angelina Jolie's Bitch ?. I don't think so. WP:LIVING applies very much here and the hurdle is a lot higher than other articles of say dead people. Maybe thats why a week ago people were claiming Brad Pitt was dead so they could stick in stuff like this. Ttiotsw 20:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Brad Pitt's Body Odor

This is a dispute as to whether it is appropriate to include the post, reproduced below, regarding Brad Pitt's body odor. The complete discussion is above.

Brad Pitt has frequently been mentioned as having exceptionally bad body odor. In 2004, Pitt was voted world's smelliest celebrity in a poll conducted by Swedish showbiz expert Mikael Jagerbrand.[4] In 2006, Brad Pitt was voted one of the world's unsexiest men because of his atrocious hygene.[5] Apparently his odor stems from an inability to bathe or wash his laundry. When co-workers on the set of Troy complained of his foul odor, Brad purchased a 3,600 dollar Calvin Klein shirt rather than showering.[6]

I believe that the existence of two polls regarding this issue has been demonstrated beyond a doubt. They were widely reported in numerous newspapers worldwide.

The issue of relevance is resolved by the google statistics demonstrating the number of mentions of these polls.

It violates the OFFICIAL POLICY of Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV to include one poll listing Mr.P is the sexiest man, while not mentioning these other widely reported polls. 19:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You have cited one source: all the others are just references to that source. The source is clearly not reliable since it doesn't say who was polled, nor how many were polled, not what they were asked. Its just something one guy made up to get in the papers. If you continue trying to add this clearly inappropriate material to the article it will be removed and you will be blocked for vandalism and disruption. Please take this warning seriously. Gwernol 19:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree it looks like a dubious source. The references all seem to point to the same source i.e. Mikael Jagerbrand. Basically who-he ? He doesn't appear elsewhere in Wikipedia. Ttiotsw 20:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jagerbrand is a Swedish showbiz expert writing for the magazine "Aftonbladet" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coolest8675309 (talkcontribs).

And not a reliable source. We won't tell you that again. --Yamla 20:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Coolest8675309, as one of the sources you quoted tells us: "[Jagerbrand] claims to have based the stinky list on information from journalists who have interviewed the stars and top-secret intelligence from other chatty celebs who dished about their peer's bad hygiene." In other words this "poll" as you keep calling it is something that Jagerbrand made up and is completely unreliable tabloid garbage. Continuing to suggest we use this as a proper source for an encyclopedia article is clearly in breach of WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:POINT. Gwernol 20:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Request/ suggestion

I think this [1] and other humanitarian work should be included but I cannot add it because of WP:COI --BozMo talk 08:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

1994 -2000

From the 1994 - 2000 section: "Pitt created a just-barely-intelligible accent suggesting the Irish Pikeys, itinerant and insular Irish Gypsies"
Setting aside the fast and loose gramar here, the word "Pikeys" is considered offensive. The fact that characters use the word in the film is neither here nor there: in Pulp Fiction, Samuel L. Jackson's character says the word "nigger" quite often, but one would not say "The nigger he portrtays in the film is based on..."
It doesn't fit in the context used anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Keep in mind that Brad's character in Snatch is regularly referred to as "The Pikey". Sam is never referred to as "The Nigger" in Pulp Fiction. --Kainaw (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Try to "keep in mind" the fact that you are missing something here. Perhaps you are you not from England, and are therefore unaware of what the word "pikey" brings to the table. The Samuel L. Jackson example was perhaps not sufficient for you because of the detail that he is not referred to as "The Nigger" in Pulp Fiction. However, this is irrelevant. What seems obvious to me - but what you are not seeing - is that just because the other characters in the film call Brad Pitt's character "The Pikey", or he is referred to as a "pikey", it does not follow that it is OK for someone reviewing the film (for example) to say (again, for example): "The Pikey that Brad Pitt plays is interesting because yada yada..."

It does not confer the right on the reviewer to use the term.

An equivalent example:
Forrest Whitaker plays a character in a film. The character is referred to throughout the film as "The Stupid Nigger". He wears a t-shirt that says "Stupid Nigger" on it for the duration of the film. This does not mean that it's somehow OK to say "Forrest Whitaker, who plays a lonely and stupid nigger in the film, is interesting because yada yada..." Of course this would be wrong. One could say "The Forrest Whitaker character, "Stupid Nigger" is bullied throughout the film by yada yada.."

I'll paraphrase the example that I originally pointed out was wrong:

"Pitt created a just-barely-intelligible accent suggesting the Irish Pikeys, itinerant and insular Irish Gypsies etc...

Now see if this sounds OK:

"Forest Whitaker created a just-barely-intelligible accent suggesting the Chicago niggers, itinerant and insular box-car travelling yada yada..."

It doesn't does it?

Apologies for being a bit moody, but the word is offensive, and the example I originally pointed out was also offensive, in the context the word was used.
It's an encyclopedia, and I'm trying to improve it. Try to "keep in mind" that there's invariably a good reason that people point something out. OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I'm sorry, but I didn't realize that the phrase "keep in mind" was considered offensive in your area of the world. Over here, it means, "while your argument is generally accepted, there is a weakness you may want to tend to so it can be stronger." --Kainaw (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was offensive. Mildy annoying, though it's only annoying if the person saying it is somehow being diversionary or just wrong. After reading what I have added, where I used examples and stated my point quite clearly about the offensive use of a racist term (certain travelers and gypsies are considered an ethnic minority in the UK), you reply making a minor and irrelevant point, and don't address the issue under discussion. I can only conclude that the reason that you originally made your first point about Samuel L. Jackson's character was because you hadn't fully read my first entry on this page.

Being reminded to "keep in mind" some irrelevant point is akin to being patronised: I never mentioned what Jackson's character was called.

Now to my original point, which still you have not addressed: the use of the word Pikey in the context it is used in the article is offensive. This, I repeat, is beside the fact that the article needs brushing up grammatically. I see no "weakness" I may want to "tend" to. If there is a bit of this "offensive use of the word Pikey" issue you don't understand, please say, but it seems crystal clear to me.

In my part of the world, these things matter.


Oh right. I had a brief look at your "user" page, and noticed that you had a hand in the article about Brad Pitt.

Now it's all making sense.


I do not know how people converse in your region of the world. Right now, we are conversing in Wikipedia. You appear to be implying that I had something to do with adding "Pikey" to the article. You then appear to be implying that I disagree with you about "Pikey" being offensive. You also appear to hide behind anonymity by refusing to type four ~'s after your comments. None of that helps in any way. You never once took the time to see if I had anything to do with adding "Pikey" or what my opinion on the word is. However, I will assume that your local customs require people to assume the worst in others. I will not hold that against you in any way. For the record, I had nothing to do with adding "Pikey" to the article and I had nothing to do with anything in the article beyond his pre-fame years. I corrected terribly incorrect information about his childhood. As for my opinion on the word "Pikey", I know that it is offensive and should not be used. I did not add it. In fact, I haven't read that far down the article to know where in the article it is used. I never stated that it should be kept. I merely pointed out that, in the movie, he is repeatedly referred to as "The Pikey". Therefore, someone may easily call him the "The Pikey" without knowing that there is some negative connotations to the name and, therefore, without the intent of insulting anyone. --Kainaw (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

For others that want to get a "helicopter view" of this:

OK. If you got the impression that I think (or I am implying) that you disagree with me about the use of the word, that's probably because up until now you haven't mentioned the fact that you agree: instead you've chosen to take this tangent of reminding me to "keep in mind" some irrelevant point. The fact that you say "I haven't read that far down the article to know where in the article it is used" concerns me, because of this: I saw something that needed correcting / I took the time to carefully add a point about this on the discussion page / instead of some Wikipedian (who technically knows how to edit the article properly) replying with "Check. Have corrected wording in article", I instead get you addressing some irrelevant point about Samuel L. Jackson. I have taken the time to constructively help the project, and all I get is this patronising point. I do not take kindly to being told to "keep" something "in mind", unless it's my father or my School Master, so I get annoyed. You get the brunt of my annoyance, and instead of considering for a minute that I might have a justifiable reason to be riled, you decide to assume that it is my natural state, or actually some kind of national characteristic. It isn't. I'd like to think that I had an international reaction to something annoying: I got annoyed. So when you say: "In fact, I haven't read that far down the article to know where in the article it is used" I then have no choice but to conclude that you made your comment without any knowledge of what I was talking about.

You rushed to judgement before all the facts were in. You Wikipedians probably have some sort of code for this (YRTJBATFWI:Wiki?) as you seem to have a code for everything else. The fact that you people often raise the "Well, of course, you're anonymous, so it's OK for you" issue is rather telling: you've become some kind of club, and you don't like strangers round here. Actually as an official "user" you have much more anonymity than I do. You hide your IP, and I don't. I've got nothing to hide. I actually am growing to dislike this place more and more, with it's American bias and it's growing little coterie of bedroom-based humourless "editors" who like to act superior, but when it comes down to it one could argue that all they are lording over is an amateur and inaccurate string of words masquerading as knowledge. Often when I come along to helpfully try and improve it, I have been thanked and welcomed. However, if your comments are anything to go by, you prefer a closed door policy. Subsequently when it comes to joining clubs, I for one will stick with the Groucho Marx theory every time. I'll have to take your word for it that you agreed with my point all along, but I draw your attention to this example:

You said this: "I merely pointed out that, in the movie, he is repeatedly referred to as "The Pikey". Therefore, someone may easily call him the "The Pikey" without knowing that there is some negative connotations to the name and, therefore, without the intent of insulting anyone"

It therefore follows that you are suggesting that if there were a review or critique of a film (say, about immigration, where one of the characters is referred to as "The motherfucking wetback") on the web or in a newspaper, it would be perhaps not acceptable but excuseable if the reviewer were to say "Jack Gonzalez plays a motherfucking wetback with a strange limp etc....."

You say: "without knowing that there is some negative connotations (sic)" and it fits perfectly: because the writer obviously didn't know, I was informing them. I assumed you wrote the article because you strangely chose in a subtle way to defend the writer instead of agreeing with me. Now please excuse my over-use of italics.

To be frank there is something about your faux-virginal shock at being "spoken" to in this way that is irritating: you're perfectly happy being bloody rude when you type a reply, and then get all blushing and surprised when it comes back. I for one ain't fooled: you've done this before. You're not as pure as the driven snow. It's written all over your words.

All the work you've done here is, I'm sure, very good, and I wish you no ill. I do want you to know, however, that this is a battle of wits you'll lose: I'm right. You're wrong. See, in my part of the world (England), we invented encyclopedias, dictionaries, this language, sarcasm, irony, and, unfortunately for you Kainaw, having the ridiculous conviction that we are right.


Stop crying. I edited the article. It isn't all that difficult. You click the "edit this page" link, edit the text, and click Save page. Youth in Asia 02:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Cheers! I wouldn't have presumed to edit a Wikipedia article: like I said, one gets the impression that so many here are often rather precious about this place, so I've always found it better to suggest things and let other insiders decide.

Again, from this mysterious masked man, cheers.

Helpful hint... There are no insiders. This is a public encyclopedia. Do whatever you like and don't complain as others do what they like. Youth in Asia 03:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You claim it's public, but you know damn well what I mean: you have a "username", and you've signed up. Wikipedia claims it is egalitarian and open, but some of its members often get all uptight about everyone "signing" their edits and comments. If someone makes a valid point or useful edit, who cares what their "nick" is? In my opinion, this is sometimes a kind of club where you're either in or out. I don't want to join, but I still want to occasionally point out something wrong. If it's truly public, then those who complain to me about being anonymous should back down. There, I've said it. And don't you start on me, Youth in Asia. Because I'll take you all on. Case in point: your point that I am responding to is actually moaning / complaining about what I do. You said "Do whatever you like and don't complain as others do what they like". If I can - as you say - do whatever I like, then why are you telling me to not complain? If I can do what I like, it follows that one of things I can do is complain.

Your point is essentially a complaint.

I'm positive that if you people have some sort of governing committee and they look at this thread, they'd come down on my lovely side. And I thought you were one of the good guys. Thanks again for the edit. And stop complaining!


Brad Pitt's phone number

Taking off the fake phone number supposedly associated with Brad Pitt. C'mon people.

This pertains to a minor grammatical/spelling error or somebody trying to slip in mean little joke, under the heading "Acting career", subheading "1994-2000" the second paragraph begins "Shit was then nominated for an Academy Award...". It should read "Pitt was then nominated for an Academy Award..." Also, in the same section, first paragraph, the article states that "he had to wear a pair of luminous green eyes, vampire fangs and a shoulder-length hairpiece to complete the appearance". Pitt did not wear a hairpiece in the film the article is speaking of, "Interview With A Vampire". Pitt dyed his natural hair, which was very long at the time, brown for the film. I would question the sources for this information as many candid, paparazzi, and red carpet photos of Pitt at that time (1992-1995)show him with his natural hair long including at the "Interview With A Vampire" and "Legends of the Fall" film premiers and the cover photo and articles of the January 30, 1995 People Magazine issue in which he was named "Sexiest Man Alive".Seanymphette 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)--Seanymphette 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Edit film link it is not pointing to the film it is pointing to a person

{{editprotected}} Please edit the film Abby Singer 2003 the he had a cameo in for the link is pointed to Abby Singer (the person) and not Abby Singer (film) Thanks for you help.Wembly Hall Theatre Company 21:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Dafyd 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please edit under "Relationship with Angelina Jolie"

{{editprotected}} Under Relationship with Angelina Jolie, end of second paragraph,, someone added "On July 10, 2007, Brad Pitt was spotted at the Pleasure Chest in West Hollywood with an acquaintance in the back room who was a special guest male stripper who had stripped for the Chippendale's company in Las Vegas. They were in the back room until about 4:40am. Then Brad Pitt and his acquaintance split their ways. Then on the 12th of July they were spotted once again at the Ralphs super market on Hollywood Boulevard with baby Maddox. This is why Brad has not been seen with Angelina for the past week.[19]"

Kindly delete this as the source is a US Weekly article about Brad Pitt loading his motorcycle for gasoline and not on any meeting in Pleasure Chest.

JG23M 18:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


what is this ?

"On July 10, 2007, Brad Pitt was spotted at the Pleasure Chest in West Hollywood with an acquaintance in the back room who was a special guest male stripper who had stripped for the Chippendale's company in Las Vegas. They were in the back room until about 4:40am. Then Brad Pitt and his acquaintance split their ways. Then on the 12th of July they were spotted once again at the Ralphs super market on Hollywood Boulevard with baby Maddox. This is why Brad has not been seen with Angelina for the past week.[19] "...????

needs to be removed Apelike 19:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. -- Kainaw(what?) 13:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Contact link

The 1992 "contact" link points to the 1997 film, which Brad Pitt had no relationship with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsoft (talkcontribs) 07:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. All you have to do is click the "edit" button and you can fix it yourself. -- kainaw 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


In 1988, in the series 21 Jumpstreet, Brad Pitt appeared in the episode #33 "Best Years of Your Life" He played a letter-jacket jock from "Taft High" name of Peter Isley.

Appearance in 1960s anti-smoking PSA

Was Brad Pitt the child that appears in the "Like Father-Like Son" anti-smoking PSA that aired circa 1967? Someone made this claim on YouTube and I want to validate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


What religion is he? I ask because of something my wife said:

Mrs: Did you ever think of dying your hair?
Me: To what color?
Mrs: Blond...
Me: Well, who do you think is sexier--Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt?
Mrs: Brad Pitt.
Me: At least he has a more sensible religion than Tom Cruise.
Mrs: What religion is Brad Pitt?
Me: No idea.

Anyway, this got me to thinking. Anybody know? Not that it affects my logic...Dawud (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor identification question

Why is it that "white" Americans are simply "American", while black/Asian/Latino/anything else Americans are identified as whatever that race is? Not to be contrary, just curious.

Wikifried (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

More about religion

I posted about an article here that I couldn't find, but I guess I didn't look hard enough. In "An Interview Runs Through It" Time Magazine, Oct. 13, 1997 (,9171,987166,00.html):

"I've always paid attention to religion," he says, "because I grew up in a religious background, but I've never felt a part of any of them. I think there's something to be drawn from most of them--other than goat sacrificing."

In the process I've found a lot of other quotes indicate a distinctly unreligious (even agnostic/humanist) perspective on religion (simple google search: "Brad Pitt Religion"). Are these things worthwhile for inclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:45, 2 April 2008

Related to Barack Obama?

According to many online source the two share a common ancestor. However, I'm not sure of the reliability of any of these --Maurice45 (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we all share a common ancestor with Barack Obama. Is there any reason to believe that Obama and Pitt's most recent common ancestor was recent enough and notable enough to be worthy of mention?Kww (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure- they're something like ninth cousins ? removed [2] --Maurice45 (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, some quick math. Going backwards, being 9th cousins (if they were even sure about that), means that they share 10th level ancestors (brothers and sisters share first level, first cousins second (grandparents), second cousins third (great grandparents), etc.). Each of them has around 1024 of those (can't be more, could be fewer via inbreeding). Now, on the average, each of those 1024 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents left around 1024 descendants. Now 1024 sounds like a small number, but that isn't the question ... the question is "what are the chances that for any two people, one of their tenth-level ancestors is common?" It was around 1750 when those ancestors were born, so the population of the world was around 700,000,000. So, that group of ancestors represents about .001% of the world's population. The chances of all members of a group of 2048 being unique at that sampling is (.99999)^2048, which is .989. In other words, take any two random people out of the world's population, and the chances that they are 9th cousins is about 1%. So, not a particularly notable relationship.Kww (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oprah Angeles Jolie-Pitt

Where exactly has this story come from? The 'citation' appears to be irrelevant to what is being said and the link is inactive anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliottReed (talkcontribs) 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Image question

The main image in the article looks bad. Wouldn't this image work instead? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Far too shaky. I'm changing it. Naurmacil (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


I just wanna say, he was really great in Seven Years in Tibet and was equally exceptional in The Fight Club. --::semper fidelis:: 17:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT discussion board on what you think of his acting in films. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ofcourse it is not. But this is a discussion board about Brad Pitt, or ain't it? The movies mentioned were quite well accepted in hollywood and the movie press. It would be a sore if you've not heard of them though, don't you think?

Fleurbutterfly 18:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But this is a discussion board about Brad Pitt, or ain't it?

No, it's not. Talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article. Zybthranger (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well since we're on the topic, I've gotta say that his acting in Seven Years in Tibet was atrocious and an embarassment to watch. Where did he learn how to act? or is he just another boy toy placed in movies by male modeling or maybe part of it is pandering to what is perceived the low cultural level of the intended audience? His German accent was patently phony and worthy of any seventh grader. Tom Cod (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is NOT a discussion board on what you think of his acting. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Not? or is? Please clarify. Because while I've enjoyed him in many of his popular roles, I've never been blown away at the depth of his acting. On the other hand, I've consistently been surprised to find his acting better than I expected. I suppose I was anticipating complete fluff from him. (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is NOT a discussion board of what you think of his acting. This talkpage is for discussing improvements towards the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please add a IW link

{{wuu:孛拉特 皮此}}

its Asian language page number 13 !!

Thanks !!


Well, what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How exactly are we supposed to know? We are ordinary people you know! If you're so interested, do your research, which is the basis of wikipedia! We are not a bunch of experts that know everthing and do not research to meet demands --Maurice45 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith to others. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brad Pitt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Few mistakes and poor grammar here and there - see below
    All issues now addressed. Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    B. MoS compliance:
    meets most relevant sections of the MOS,however fails WP:WTA with a single mention of "Ironically". I also don't like the 3rd column in the filmography - it seems very random - mentioning cameos and awards is OK, but the odd mention of filming location, director? messy.
    Does the table look good now? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ironically has been taken out of the sentence. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    all looks good now. Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    sources provided throughout article
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    controversial material, quotes,stats all inline referenced
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    covers areas you'd expect, comparable to actor FAs. Only point I'd make is that the early career stuff starts a little late, not covering the earliest roles in Filmography, but within GA criteria
    B. Focused:
    too much irrelevant detail on the children, particularly pre-Brad
    How 'bout now? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Spot on! Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    appears to be neutral, borderline pro Pitt. I can't think of any major turkeys in his career though so I think this is fine
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    no edit wars or active disputes
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    All images are tagged, none are free-use
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    wasn't sure about the Ocean's 11 lineup at first, but good to illustrate moving up to the A list
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    a little more polishing and it should be there.
    All concerns addressed, a GOOD ARTICLE! Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Specific points on 1a:

"advertising such diverse products as Edwin Jeans" looks like it's missing a product, perhaps removed in editing.
Stupid question: What exactly do you mean? --

 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd expect it to read something like "such diverse products as x and y", where x and y show the range of diversity. Only one example doesn't show that diverse products were advertised, so alternately could drop "diverse". Sure enough, a version from 30 March 2008 read "advertising such diverse products as Edwin Jeans, the Toyota Altis, and Japanese canned coffee" Paulbrock (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It did, but there weren't any sources to back those two claims. Do you want the sentence to be re-written? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps can just lose 'diverse' then, if only one product can be verified, then we can't talk about a diverse range. Paulbrock (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"on an episode of MTV's Jackass" - should read "and appeared on an episode of..."
Got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"Pitt wore a pair of luminous green eyes" - contact lenses?
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

probably a couple more I didn't notice, not really my forte! Paulbrock (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All grammar issues have been addressed. Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking your time in reviewing the article. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Pringles commercial

Apparently he appeared in a Pringles commercial in 1989. See (in case editors here decide this is worth mentioning in the article). --Itub (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Death? Hoax?

This is a hoax correct?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, the editor admitted it was a joke. *sigh*¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


The name of the boy is Knox Léon, not Knox Leon, according to the birth certificate (Léon is the name of Angelina's great-great grandfather). See [3] --Markov (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Pitt has not adopted Maddox, Pax, nor Zahara. If you read the articles on the matter, it clearly states that Jolie only filed for a name change for the children and for him to get a form of guardianship. While he did file to adopt Maddox and Zahara, he has not completed the adoption process, despite the process normally taking place in under a year. Pitt has never filed to adopt Pax.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Glasshouse2008 (talkcontribs) 20:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pitt has not adoped his girlfreind's three adopted children. It's an insult to adopted parents to have him listed as adopting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marymarywhyubuggin (talkcontribs) 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

University of Missouri

Also, apparently Brad Pitt was a student at the University of Missouri-Columbia (UMC) the same time that Sheryl Crow and Elizabeth Vargas were. Does anyone know if these future celebrities actually knew each other while they were students at UMC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A mistake in awards

According to the Academy awards database, Brad Pitt did not win the oscar statue for his supporting role in Twelve monkeys. He was a nominee, as it is in the article (elsewhere). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it still there? I don't see it. Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Comments from What!?Why?Who? (talk)

  • It has a lot of external links.
  • It is very detailed in his life.
  • The article gives the awards he has won in detail.
  • His movies are listed.

It is a great article.

typo notification

(can't edit to fix) typo: iniative -> initiative

Where exactly is this at? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Softbank Mobile

He also factors rather heavily into Softbank Mobile's marketing (multiple commercials). Perhaps this should be mentioned too? (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Source? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Disproportionately long

This article seems far longer and more detailed than the subject warrants. (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Across The Tracks

The sentence about this film is not only inaccurate, it's very poorly worded. There isn't an actress named Vera Martins in the film, so that needs to be removed.--Swepinoch (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Box Office performance of Ocean's Thirteen

The box office figure given for this film is wrong. It made $311 million worldwide according to Box Office Mojo. The $36 million figure quoted in the article was the first weekend's U.S. box office amount only--Swepinoch (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC).

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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 (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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

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.,,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. 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.,,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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

It having valid sources which could be seen by some editors here as being a notable article is not the problem. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

Suggestion For Addition to External Links

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))

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

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: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Has been added. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sleepers - a major critical failure?

The article states that Sleepers(1996)was a "major critical failure", citing Metacritic as a source. If you check Metacritic, you find that Sleepers recieved a score of 49, meaning "mixed or average" reviews. Hardly a major critical failure. Why don't you just say "mixed or average reviews"? Either that or find another source.

Escadero (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please add True Romance to Filmography

Brad Pitt was the stoner smoking out of the honey bear in True Romance. Who should I tell this to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange, it is included. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)