Talk:Brad Pitt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Brad Pitt is currently a good article nominee. An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made in order to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Date: 20:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brad Pitt article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Contents

[edit] Vandal

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)

[edit] Contact link

The 1992 "contact" link points to the 1997 film, which Brad Pitt had no relationship with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsoft (talk • contribs) 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)

[edit] Filmography

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.

[edit] 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 206.55.142.146 (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion?

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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987166,00.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 68.113.202.115 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 2 April 2008

[edit] 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 [1] --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)

[edit] 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 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Acting

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)

[edit] Ethnicity

Well, what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.94.186.41 (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)

[edit] 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
    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)
  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)
  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.


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)