Talk:Brad Pitt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri.

Contents 1 Marriage Statement 2 Pictures 3 Gay Porn Speculation 4 Neutrality 5 Image question 6 Date for separate 7 "Tufano" vandalism 8 On TV 9 Learnt 10 English/Irish 11 Spoonerism 12 Quotes from People? 13 re-formatting article 14 Then ex-wife?? 15 Happy Together 16 Need to change 17 Recent changes 18 Spy Game film and Redford/Pitt relationship 19 Vandalism 20 Photos 21 Plan B 22 Gossip

[edit] Marriage Statement

Your change to the page Brad Pitt was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In what way was my change unhelpful? Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Brad Pitt, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Yamla 18:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yamla, why are you threatening me? I am not a vandal. I only want to contribute to the effort to document Mr. Pitts' social activism. Perhaps you have misunderstood my efforts. Will you reconsider? As I understand it, I am operating within the limits set by the oversight ogranization of the Wikipedia.

Your change to the page Brad Pitt was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What about my change {As of yet it is not clear if this belief applies to persons under the age of 14, those who wish to marry more than one person, or those who prefer to have relations with animals.[4]} was unhelpful, and why did you remove my earlier question {Marrage Statement

Why did someone remove the sentence I added? After all, it is unclear weather or not the "Marrage Statement" he and his breeding partner have issued applies to persons under the age of 14, persons who would like to marry more than one person at a time, or persons that prefer to have relations with animals. }from the discussion page?

Who says it's unclear? I mean, I've read the article and from context you know he's talking about gay marriage. Besides, wiki rules state we gotta keep away from potentially libelous statements when talking about a living person. Implying that Pitt supports polygamy, paedophilia or zoophilia _is_ potentially libelous. And to be honest, I've searched around and it seems all press agencies understand that Pitt was referring exclusively to gay marriage. I think your statement was a bit outlandish, and thus correctly removed. Cheers Raystorm 22:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

a)It's irrelevant whether it's unclear; the sentence is an editorial comment. b) It's not unclear; gay marriage is well-known to be a topic of societal debate, and the comment was widely interpreted as referring to gay marriage, even on the page that the anon troll cites below; it was widely understood to refer to gay marriage, even by trolls who pretend otherwise. -- Jibal 04:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

_____

I, as well as others [ http://www.federalreview.com/2006/09/brad-pitt-is-genius.htm ] , say it is unclear. (It only takes one.) How did you read an article that will not be out until next week? All I have is commentary from other people that have received advanced copy for review. Do you have a copy of the article? May I see it?

All I have seen is others attributing his statement to a support of same sex marriage, not a statement of his actual support. From the statement given in quotes, "Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," it is unclear because there is no attribution as to purpose.

Libelous? Hardly. In order to be libelous, a statement has to be false. In order for what I wrote to be so, you would have to prove that I know he does not support such things, which I do not. If he had been quoted as stating, "In support of same sex marriage, "Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," what I wrote would be in error, and I most certainly would not have written what I wrote.

I do not know why you are replying to a question I have asked others, but not you.

I will place the addition up again, unless I am made aware of a valid reason I should not do so. It is my understanding that no one of you, nor all of you own the content in question, that ownership is common to anyone on earth. I am here to make my claim with the rest of you. Cheers!

Vandalism may result in a block being placed against your IP address. Remember, no original research. --Yamla 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

________

Yamla, I am not a vandal. As I wrote earlier, I only wish to contribute to the effort to document Mr. Pitts' social activism, as well as other facets of his life and work.

How, exactly, is the sentence I added to be classified as original research? It is nothing more than a statement relating to the lack of clarity encapsulated within the quote.

Would a different construction suffice? How about "Others have noted that Mr. Pitt's words do not include a specific reference to same sex marriage, leading some to question weather or not he also intended to voice support for child marriage, polygamy, polyandry, and so on."

Would that be OK if I listed sources, as in people having stated confusion as to his meaning? Is the general population to be ignored? Having viewed the "original research" page, I noted within it "For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable."

As I stated earlier, I have not seen any source with a direct quote of Mr. Pitt having stated his support for same sex marriage, only that he would not marry until "everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able". I am sure you would agree that the statement is hardly the same as stating that they would not marry until same sex marriage was legal.

Thank You For Your Patience, anon

It would be reasonable to note that people are confused if you can find a reliable source to cite your claim. Note that a blog, or the site you listed above, is not acceptable. Something like a citation from the New York Times or similar would be good, though. I find it highly unlikely that any reasonable person would read into Pitt's statements that he was supporting child marriage or marriage to animals. It seemed clear to me that he was talking about consenting adults. Similarly, it seems reasonable to assume good faith and not read into his statements that he was supporting incest and the like. However, if you can find a high-quality citation indicating that people are really thinking this, please by all means add it to the article. Pitt certainly wasn't as clear as could be required of, say, a lawyer, but I suppose it is possible that people now believe Pitt supports marriages with goats. Once again, a high-quality reliable source indicating that people actually believe this would be required. You may well want to post your planned source here first because we'll have little patience with gossip sites. --Yamla 02:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Such a note would not be reasonable in any case; this is an article about Brad Pitt, not about confused people and their confusion. It's a fact that he was referring to gay marriage, even if "anon" is confused (but we can be reasonably certain that he isn't). We know it's a fact because bans on gay marriage are a current topic of discussion in American society whereas bans on marrying goats are not, and virtually everyone who commented on Pitt's statement (including the page that "anon" cites) interpreted it that way, and not a patently incorrect way. -- Jibal 04:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

____

Yamla,

Understood. However, I've noticed that the source listed [ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_en_mo/people_brad_pitt ] does not contain within it any reference to same sex marriage. Is that what you mean by "high quality citation"? Perhaps the "same sex marriage" statement should be removed?

In any event, the article listed as a citation does not have a byline, so we do not know who wrote it. I would think that this may also disqualify its' use as a citation in support of anything.

Again my Thanks, Anon

[edit] Pictures

he's Brad Pitt for god sakes. Someone please add more updated pictures. also can someone add a much needed awards and nominations section. I added a picture of him that is "question", it is a still from Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I know that other celebrity articles have stills of movies, and it is common. If someone can please correct it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myrockstar (talk • contribs) .

It is noted as unverified because you did not add the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 17:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The image has been changed to more accomadate your requests. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myrockstar (talk • contribs) .

Thank you, Myrockstar! --Yamla 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

who cares?? everyone knows what he looks like and it's not like Google Images cant be the obvious secondhand here.

[edit] Gay Porn Speculation

The statement He was two credits shy of graduating with a journalism degree when he left to try his luck in Hollywood in the porn industry. However, he wanted to join the gay porn industry. Such people he wanted to start working with (as in screw) include Joseph Cannistraro and Phil Collins. needs a source listed or it should be deleted as potentially liable.205.157.110.11 22:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Phil Collins? Def. vandalism. Lsjzl 07:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Or it should be kept because it is hilarious and most likely true

[edit] Neutrality

What's up with the neutrality dispute? I don't get it. If nobody replies, I'll remove it. Spikeballs 12:00, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Gone! Spikeballs 20:10, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

"He is an admitted bi-sexual." I'm not disputing this, but when did Brad Pitt admit that? (needs backing up/reference)

The only thing I can find is several sites referencing 'rumor' sites that are claiming that Pitt is bi-sexual. All of these state he is not. I'm removing this statement. If it can be proven put it back. Menos 20:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd sure like to be the one to find out!

[edit] Image question

Is it okay to put an image of Brad Pitt taken by the papparazzi in the article? It's copyrighted but I think the fair use policy applies to it:

1. the photo is only being used for informational purposes.
2. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article
3. it does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the original product in any way

Please comment.

I was thinking of using this image: . I looked at the site and it says that the picture is free. Also, I was thinking of just using the rightmost 1/3rd of the picture. And if his penis isn't desired, then I could crop the picture to just show the top half. Would this be okay?

This photo is almost certainly NOT in the public domain. Nohat 23:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date for separate

The announcement is made on Friday, January 7, 2005. ABC News, About.com, E Online.

[edit] "Tufano" vandalism

Note that edits inserting supposed information about "Marc Tufano" are vandalism and should be reverted on sight. This has affected multiple articles (Robert De Niro, The Beatles, etc. etc.) -- Curps 18:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On TV

I saw an episode of MTV's Jackass with Brad Pitt on it and decided that it might be trivia worthy and added it to the Trivia Section.

[edit] Learnt

I found "learnt" on the last fact on the trivia section. Was this vandalsim or a grammatical error?

I would venture to say that it was a grammatical error as far as the word is concerned. Though I'd like to see a source for the entire sentence. Just because they read their own scripts doesn't mean that they know how to make soap and have actually made a bar or two. Dismas|^(talk) 13:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, your point seems to make sense. Why would someone being a part of the movie intentionally "teach" them how to make soap when it wouldn't do anything for the movie. It isn't like it's valid movie research that would add anything to the movie in an overall sense.

"Learnt" is past-tense of "learn". It is more commonly written as "learned", however, but "learnt" is still perfectly valid. I didn't add the word to the article, however, and it is possible that you are complaining about something other than the choice of words. --Yamla 15:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Learnt" is the more common spelling of "learned" in England, especially when used as a participle or adjective.--Esprit15d 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English/Irish

I removed that info, because I couldn't find a good source. Does anyone have one? JackO'Lantern 07:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoonerism

Um... I don't suppose it's encyclopedic to point out the obvious spoonerism of his daughter's name, is it? 88.106.90.46 09:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes from People?

What value is there in: "Angie and baby are fantastic," a source close to the couple told People on May 28. "Brad was at her side during the birth."

Suggest removal as it's the standard PR tripe.

[edit] re-formatting article

I would like to propose the re-formatting of the biographcial section of article. I would like to keep all the information but change it around, and add more sourced information on Brad Pitt. This is how I propose the new article to be

• Personal Life

Early Life

Here would go info on his early life from childhood to his move to hollywood.

Relationships and Marriage

Here would go his past relationships like paltrow, his marriage, and divorce to jennifer aniston, to his relationship with Jolie.

Fatherhood

Here would go info on the adoption of Maddoxx and Zahara, to the birth of Shiloh.

Media spotlight

Here would go info on his highly publicized marriage and divorce, to his relationship with Jolie and birth of Shiloh. Also all the world's sexiest man hooplah.

• Career

Early work

Here would go info on his work on television along with other early material.

Film career

Here would go info on his roles from thelma&louise to current.

other work

here would go info on his other work such as commercials, advertisements, producing.

• Charity

here would go his work on charity and related info.

Any objections, suggestions, recomendations are greatly appreciated. If I hear nothing of the matter, I will assume there is no objection. Thank you! Myrockstar 08:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Then ex-wife??

"Brad Pitt dated Mike Tyson's then ex-wife Robin Givens." -- I'm not very familar with Ms Givens' biography, but this phrasing would make sense only if she later re-married Tyson, which as far as I can tell was not the case. Better would be "Brad Pitt dated Mike Tyson's ex-wife Robin Givens". (Or for that matter "Brad Pitt dated Robin Givens".) -- 201.78.251.20 14:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Together

Does anyone want to write an article for Brad's 1989 movie Happy Togetber? (There is already a film of the same name which Brad is not a part of so please don;t simply link it. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 13:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need to change

This sounds really retarded, it's in the personal life section "Pitt has used his celebrity to campaign for assistance to Africa," I think they mean used is FAME to campaign for assistance to Africa. Kniesten 16:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Same difference

--I'd say that the vandalism under his personal history section needs changing too - testicular cancer in his knees, for instance? ~Heather

[edit] Recent changes

I would like to thank Ernst Stavro Blofeld for starting to work on this article and turning it into a more useful form. Just some suggestions to improve it further:

1. Lead has to be at least two paragraphs per WP:LEAD
2. Early life needs to be extended
3. Early work needs more prose as well
4. Different relationship sections should probably be cut down a bit, since they are rather tabloid heavy
5. Trivia must go, everything noteworthy should be work into the text
6. Filmograhy should be converted into a table
7. Awards section should probably go as well, major awards (Oscars, Golden Globes, Emmys) can be worked into the text, the rest is not worth mentioning
8. Overall a lot more references are needed and all should be converted into footnotes

EnemyOfTheState 15:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if it looked more like an encyclopedia article and less like a fanzine article. -- Jibal 05:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spy Game film and Redford/Pitt relationship

After his wedding to Friends actress Jennifer Aniston in the summer of that year he immediately began filming for Spy Game, a Cold War thriller in which he starred alongside veteran actor Robert Redford starring as his son, a highly appropriate casting due to their similar physical resemblance.

I've seen this movie plenty of times and nowhere does it state or even imply that Redford's character (Nathan Muir) and Pitt (Tom Bishop) are father and son. Bishop, an army sniper during Vietnam, is recruited by Muir, a CIA trainer, with the plot revolving around their continued teacher/protege relationship. Unless anyone objects, I'm going to re-write this paragraph. - jibegod 21:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You are completely right. Not only unencyclopedic and POV, but a factually incorrect interpretation of the film. Good catch. —Nate Scheffey 23:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, got side-tracked after making my last post. Thanks for handling the revision; much better now. - jibegod 05:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

There are ridiculous statements and obvious slander dispatched through out this page. Sentences like "He contracted testicular cancer in his knees" and "rumored to have same sex relationships with likes of Barbara Streisand". Things like this make Wiki hard to use as any kind of reliable source....

Wikipedia is not now nor does it intend to ever become a reliable source. For example, Wikipedia articles cannot be used to cite another Wikipedia article. We do try to fix vandalism when we find it, though. --Yamla 18:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How's that half-empty glass of water? - jibegod 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, this is official policy. --Yamla 03:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Was referring to the 'Things like this make Wiki hard to use as any kind of reliable source....' line in the post above. If it's that bad, why visit? - jibegod 03:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And what's in that glass? It's not WP policy to make WP unreliable, and the fact that WP articles can't cite other WP articles has no bearing on it being "any kind of reliable source" -- the kind of source that doesn't contain ridiculous statements and slander; such statements are in fact against WP policy, which goes way beyond fixing vandalism. -- Jibal 05:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Hello, I feel a link to a picture gallery could be useful here, so I'm proposing http://www.all-pictures.org/celebrities/v/celebs/males/brad+pitt since it's very extensive. If you think it's suitable, please feel free to add it.

[edit] Plan B

Does it make any sense to add a section about his production credits? In other words, a list similar in format to filmography? Just curious...

[edit] Gossip

I think this article looks more a gossip magazine than encyplopedic writing. The lead is ridiculous. What about a complete re-writing? Machocarioca 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Agreed. I did a bit of a cleanup but it could still use a lot of work. Allll the gossip should be excised. JDoorjam Talk 06:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)