Talk:Brad Pitt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Brad Pitt is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 10, 2012.

Ancestry[edit]

I have serious doubts about the author of that piece at famousfolks, genealogy.com. The author is only cited there as "The Genealogy.com Staff" which is not an acceptable citation since we cannot confirm that such an author is a credible expert in their field, who has been previously published by a third-party publication. Publication on your own site, is not an acceptable credential. I attempted to send an email to the email address listed on that article, and it bounced. I then sent an email to the parent company. In the meanwhile I have put a strike-through on the link with a note.Wjhonson (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You cannot do that kind of thing to a featured article. If you have an issue with a link, you can remove it, comment it out or raise it on the talk page, but you can't just make your own comment next to it in the bloody mainspace! As for the link itself, I see little encyclopaedic value to it an am all in favour of removing altogether. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of removing that link. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
So it is written, so let it be done. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Pitt described his ancestry in a recent episode of Inside the Actor's Studio. Lifebonzza (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
No Seminole or Cherokee ancestors have been documented in publicly available family trees of Brad Pitt. His Family trees reveal English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh and distant German ancestry. He claims being German but the German in his family was so far back its not even relevant. Why is this information not on here despite the supporting evidence it has.::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:795D:9CF0:8E28:F892 (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Reword?[edit]

"In a July 2009 interview he said that he did not believe in God, and that he was "probably 20 percent atheist and 80 percent agnostic."[177]"

Okay, that's not new. But the way it is worded is taking the quote a bit out of context. He state's he's agnostic, but has no trouble with religion abd believes it is a good thing (see sources used). Shouldn't it be elaborated a bit? 64.234.0.101 (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What's relevant are his beliefs. His non-objection to what others believe is not particularly relevant to him and not notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Television debut[edit]

Pitt was on "Another World" in May 1987, which predates what is considered his television debut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talkcontribs) 00:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Vegan trivia[edit]

Do we really need this sentence in the article: "Pitt is a vegan, which has created some conflict with Jolie." Arguably, the second phrase is a stretch and not supported by the source, but the information itself is trivial.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The "which has created some conflict with Jolie" part should be removed not really important to include. I agree that the vegan bit is trivial doesn't seem like encyclopedic information. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

you should remove this sentence alltogether, because he is not vegan. he ate some chicken while is visit at documenta13 on june14-2012, as local and national media reported. (yeah, this is big news) just google "brad pitt hähnchen kassel" or "brad pitt huhn adana", which brings up his fave chicken dish in NYC. another alpha vegan left the boat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.138.24.135 (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Traciamaria, 6 August 2011[edit]

In 1988 Brad Pitt also appeared as Theodore "Teddy" Johnson in movie "A Stoning in Fulham County".

Could this be added to his filmography?

Also, the entry for 1988 - "21 Jump Street" is out of chronological order.

Could this be fixed?

Thankyou Tracie

Traciamaria (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - It looks to me that the filmography is only listing selected appearances as Pitt's filmography is rather lengthy and the emphasis seems to be on his more notable appearances in film and television. I have changed the title of the section to reflect that the filmography presented is not a complete list. As for the 21 Jump Street credit being out of order, it appears correct to me as it is the only credit from 1988. Pinkadelica 23:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Girl friends in the Illuminati[edit]

What do his girl friends have in common apart from initials (they mean more then you know) After Intell recieved this batch of un pronounced detailed co incidence we just put his name in a song. Angie , and Aniston do hope you are well! In henley just gotta Barrack and pick up! peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.161.73 (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)



Gay activist[edit]

I reverted the addition of the category LGBT activist because I don't see sufficient support in the article. Apparently, the adding editor believes Pitt's donation to Prop 8 and his refusing to get married to Jolie until gays have the right to marry (and saying so) are enough. I don't. Donations aren't activism and making one statement in support of gay rights is hardly activism, either. If it were, there'd be quite a number of Hollywood activists in the U.S. I'm not reverting again, but I thought I'd start this topic in case anyone's interested.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the category is inappropriate. Pitt is clearly a straight ally, which is great, but to call his support "activism" is reaching. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing[edit]

In the opening of the article it states "Pitt has received two Academy Award nominations and four Golden Globe Award nominations, winning one". Well, a sentence written that way can leave some readers walking away thinking the one award he won was an Academy Award; other readers will walk away thinking it was a Golden Globe; and still other readers will walk away not knowing which one he won.

The sentence should be written as "Pitt has received two Academy Award nominations and four Golden Globe Award nominations, winning one Golden Globe". OR, "Pitt has received two Academy Award nominations. He also received four Golden Globe Award nominations, winning one".

But it is not acceptable to run the two awards together in one sentence, then say "winning one" without be perfectly clear on what he won. No matter how it may sound in the mind of the writer, the writer has to make sure it cannot be interpreted any other way. This way there is no miscommunication or misunderstanding by the reader as to what Pitt won. A small fix will leave no readers walking away with a misunderstanding, and isn't that what Wiki is for, educating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Three oscar nominations?[edit]

'Pitt has received three Academy Award nominations' On the imdb it says hes been nominated 4 times, 3 for acting and one for Best picture as producer of 'Moneyball' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.201.3 (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article has been changed to reflect this. He is brilliant and very inspiring! Lifebonzza (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Pending"?[edit]

Why have "pending" precede the notation of his 2012 Oscar nomination? Just leave it as 'Nominated', and change it if he wins. As this page is locked, it seems it's someone with editing privileges making unnecessary, pretentious edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.28.234 (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Filmography[edit]

Please edit the title of "Coogan's Trade" to "Killing Them Softly." It was renamed. Source: IMDb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustyreub (talkcontribs) 17:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Lifebonzza (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This should be changed.[edit]

The following should be changed-In 1999, Pitt portrayed Tyler Durden, an uncompromising and charismatic individual, in Fight Club. I think it should read-In 1999, Pitt portrayed Tyler Durden, in Fight Club. Saying an uncompromising and charismatic individual,sounds like a fact, or someone's opinion of the character Tyler Durden. The statement needs to be neutral. I'm sure some people do not think Tyler Durden was an uncompromising and charismatic individual, therefore, it should be changed. The article is locked so I cannot do it.--BeckiGreen (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Scrnriter on November 5, 2012[edit]

Can we add to the very end of "After 2003":

His next role will be mob hitman Jackie Cogan in Andrew Dominik's Killing Them Softly, based on the novel Cogan's Trade by George V. Higgins, which will premiere in the United States on November 30, 2011.


X mark.svg Not done. We need a source. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is source: http://www.deadline.com/2012/09/toronto-weinstein-co-pushes-brad-pitt-pic-killing-them-softly-back-into-oscar-race/

Yes check.svg Done but with the New Zealand Herald as the source. Thanks, good edit suggestion. -- Dianna (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.121.138.51 (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 May 2013[edit]

Request title of: partner: Angelina Jolie (2005-present); to appear in infobox. Common knowledge, referenced in wikipage. 71.169.178.248 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Already there.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

People (magazine)/People.com[edit]

In this edit, John removed People sources and replaced them with WP:Citation needed tags in some cases, citing WP:BLPSOURCES. I have to point out that People is generally not considered tabloid journalism, at least not by Wikipedia, which is why this article was elevated to WP:Featured article status with People sources. People has been taken to the WP:BLP noticeboard more than once, and is generally accepted as a reliable source for biographies of living persons (especially when it comes to sourcing itself with regard to a person having given an interview to the publication). Instead of reverting John, because I'd rather not get into a WP:Edit war and because I figure that someone else is likely to revert him, I decided to bring the matter to this talk page; this discussion, if I had reverted John, was likely inevitable. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a gossip rag and is not a reliable source. --John (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
So, despite what I stated above, I see that I have to take this to the WP:BLP noticboard. Anyone else want to weigh in before I do? Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Taken to the WP:BLP noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It would be very unwise to restore poorly sourced material to this article, especially while central discussion is still ongoing. We are arguing aboutr People but there are also sources like the Sun and the New York Daily News which we cannot use. --John (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
No, WP:Consensus has already proven you wrong at the noticeboard in a discussion that has clearly run its course. It is very unwise to go against that consensus and to continue to remove sources that have been deemed appropriate to use for this article. That discussion is clearly not simply about People. The New York Daily News is an acceptable source as well, as explained there and no one is arguing to keep sources such as The Sun. As for the matter of ongoing discussion, if it is very unwise for me to restore the sourcing (which it isn't, per above), then it is very unwise of you to WP:Edit war that material out, and to remove further such material, while the discussion is still open. Flyer22 (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
No, a local consensus cannot override a core policy. The People sources are gossip crud; the New York Daily News and The Sun are tabloids and cannot ever be used. --John (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
No, back at you, per the comments from others at the WP:BLP noticeboard, those who pointed out your faulty behavior at WP:ANI, and per this. Repeating yourself over and over does not make you right. Get the point. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
And for goodness sakes, stop mentioning The Sun. You know that no one has been supporting the use of that in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I only mentioned it because you edit-warred to restore it, along with the trashy People material. You can't actually be this stupid, can you? --John (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
If I edit-warred, then you edit-warred. But I certainly did not edit war to restore The Sun. I missed it upon restoration of the many other sources you took out. So sue me. This previous edit shows that I missed a similar source before as well and took it out when spotting it. And you are on a fast track to getting yourself blocked; yes, Mr. administrator, you are not exempt from that. From the pathetic way you've acted to your pathetic personal attacks during this dispute, you clearly are not a mature editor and you are very unbecoming of your administrative status. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Please note that semi-protection will have to be reinstated when the full protection expires, if someone could remind me in a week that would be great. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the full-protection of the article, Mark. Going to a noticeboard is one form of WP:Dispute resolution. As you know, I went to one of the two most relevant noticeboards (The other one would be the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.) And, as noted, John has not respected the WP:Consensus that resulted from that process. I don't see why the WP:Consensus formed during that process should be discarded just because John didn't get his way there. If he's hoping to go through dispute resolution process after dispute resolution process until he eventually gets his way, he can count me out. And given the turnout (number of people participating) for WP:RfC and the other dispute resolution processes, being more iffy, and considering the relevancy of the WP:BLP noticeboard in this case, going to the WP:BLP noticeboard about it was probably the best route. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yada yada yada. So now we have a protected BLP with not only the celebrity diarrhea from the People restored, but multiple examples of the New York Daily News. Is anybody competent arguing with a straight face that the NYDN is not a tabloid? At least we managed to get rid of The Sun... --John (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
So you can't hold an argument. And you have this. No hope for you, or this article or other articles with you at them. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The Sun and similar tabloids are looked down in extreme disdain,([1]) and for good reasons too, but I think under some circumstances it is acceptable to cite their opinions in context provided they are clearly marked as such - for example, I would consider "People's Janet Mock described Pitt's appearance in A River Runs Through It as "a career-making performance"" to be acceptable. But since this article is a FA, I think the quality control on sources should be much stricter - we certainly shouldn't be citing the Sunday People and claiming it's an example of Wikipedia's best ever work. All that being said, I find it sad that an article had to be fully protected due to an all-out edit war by two highly experienced editors on a perennial subject, and voicing your personal opinions on certain tabloid newspapers isn't really on. I'd love The Sun to shut up shop tomorrow but about 2.5 million people don't share my opinion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Ritchie. You know that I always appreciate your commentary. However, I wouldn't call it an "all-out edit war" as though I was acting inappropriately by having reverted John twice. I was acting within policy -- WP:Consensus. My restorations have the support of the WP:BLP noticeboard, and previous consistent WP:Consensus on this matter. As noted in the WP:ANI discussion, I was not going to revert again. But a different editor, NeilN, stepped in to revert John's disruption (his repeated WP:Consensus violation). I'd already obviously tried to discuss this topic with John. He apparently does not discuss on Wikipedia, not with any real substance, which has been pointed out by others at WP:ANI; for example, here. He simply reiterates that he is right, and that he will keep the sources out of the article. People and the New York Daily News are generally not considered tabloid journalism (at least not on Wikipedia); that is what John cannot accept. He has the right to not accept it. He does not have the right to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines to impose that belief on the rest of the community. This is not a WP:Ignore all rules matter. Flyer22 (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

An attempt to untangle this[edit]

Now that everyone's declared they're upset, I'm going to suggest a compromise and move forward. I'm going to adopt John's Pooh Principle and take this diff as being indicative of the entire dispute, because frankly that's all my brain can handle. So, in order:

  1. Names and occupations of parents. Keep, but find better source. This book source recites the information and appears to come from a publisher with proper editorial standards and control. Some self-published sources contest that William Alvin pit actually owned the company, but merely helped manage it - in which case it may simply be better to state their names and leave the occupations out.
  2. Describing himself as going between atheism and agnosticism. Delete - not important to his career. If he starts supporting the League of Agnostics and it appears in multiple broadsheets and books, we can reconsider
  3. Being a member of the golf, swimming, tennis and wrestling teams. Keep although I'm a little twitchy about citing him as being a wrestler, particularly as his career hasn't particularly called on it. The others are not controversial at all - thousands if not millions of people played golf, swimming and tennis in their youth.
  4. Being a member of the Sigma Chi fraternity at college. Delete - because hazing in Greek letter organizations is notable for occurring, directly associated a notable person with one should be backed up with impeccable sources.
  5. Taking lessons from Roy London. Keep - London's own article is train wreck of unsourced opinions, but the one source that is present does suggest he was fondly remembered and his association with Pitt cannot be considered negative.
  6. Citing Dallas appearances. Keep - backs up an existing source
  7. Quotation about working with Shalane McCall - Delete specific cite to People but Keep the rest of the paragraph cited to The Times-Picayune which seems to have been removed by accident
  8. Citing Glory Days appearance. Keep - backs up existing appearance
  9. Appearance in A River Runs Through It (film) as "a career-making performance". Keep but attribute explicitly to the author, as mentioned above
  10. Premiere of Fight Club at the Venice International Film Festival - Keep, but find better source. This might be suitable, or it might not - but again this is citing straightforward facts
  11. Guest appearance on Friends. Keep, but find better source Here's one from BBC Entertainment. Incidentally, the removal of the source only was a mistake - either the supporting text should have been removed or the source replaced with {{citation needed}}
  12. Earnings for Tror - Delete - it's covered in other sources
  13. Appearance at the 2009 Cannes festival - Keep, but find better source Here's a Time Magazine one
  14. Citing Moneyball is based on a book by Michael Lewis. Keep unless I missed the numerous news reports that stated somebody else wrote the book
  15. Travelling with Angelina Jolie to see the impact of the 2005 Kashmir earthquake Delete simply because I did a news search for the event and the only hit was thedailygossip.com ... which kind of implies nobody else cares.
  16. Establishing foundations and donations. Delete Reports of specific figures dished out by celebrities need impeccable sources
  17. Jolie-Pitt foundation donations to aid displaced Pakistanis. Delete - already cited by BBC, describing human conflict is one area where it isn't acceptable to cite a gossip column
  18. Support for same-sex marriage. Keep text, nuke sources - I did a news search and was struggling to find anything outside of the gossip magazines. International Business Times is about the best I can handle, which does support the basic premise of the text.
  19. Advertising the Acura Integra. Conditionally delete unless an Asian editor can find a cite confirming he's nationally well known for his advert there
  20. "Will Brad Pitt ever age?" Delete - doesn't add anything
  21. Whole "Personal life" section - I think this needs a more indepth look, as there seem to have been substantial changes. John's version in shorter, and my gut feeling is to go with that (less information = less controversy), but even then some of the sources look suspicious, citing celeb magazines. For specific information about marriages, divorces, children, I'd prefer to stick to the broadsheets.
  22. Adoptions. Delete - not directly relevant to his notability. Some of the information, including renaming their kids to "Jolie-Pitt" appears to be duplicated
  23. Birth date of their twins. Delete - already cited to the Daily Telegraph later on
  24. External links. Delete People bio - doesn't really add anything to what we can tell from the article

So there you go. In reviewing this list, I've noticed a theme, which is I am more lenient about retaining information that specifically relates to accomplishments in his professional acting career, and strongly against retaining that which deals with his personal life and relationships.

Discuss away.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Nice analysis Ritchie. You've done what Flyer should have done three reverts and two noticeboards ago. Well done for being an adult and a Wikipedian. --John (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I can only see this latest reply from you as applying to yourself. After all, it is you others at WP:ANI have categorized, in one way or another, as disruptive. Not me. As shown by this, this (side addition here), this, this, this and this post (just to name a few). Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the edits Ritchie333 just made, I will be restoring the information that was in the Personal life section regarding the other people Pitt has dated. These people are notable, their relationships with Pitt are covered in their Wikipedia articles and there's no valid reason that these relationships should not be covered in this one as well. Limiting that matter to the fact that he's dated Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie is insufficient to me, especially considering that there is now no mention of Gwyneth Paltrow, who remains mentioned in the lead, despite the fact that she is one of his more notable relationships. Also, given the clear WP:Consensus that has even more recently developed at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, with regard to the use of People for biographies of living persons generally being fine, I will be removing the "better source" tags that Ritchie333 placed. There is no valid reason to ban People from this article, especially for uncontentious material; I will use it when I cannot find a better alternative for it. And, no, a better alternative not being available does not mean that the information probably should be removed. In some cases, People is the better alternative, because, as pointed out in the aforementioned WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussion, they specialize in the topic of celebrities. As for the adoptions not being a part of Pitt's notability, I wouldn't state that...going by some WP:Reliable sources; he and Jolie are well noted/often cited for the adoptions because that is a big part of their public image as a couple. The part that states "Pitt's publicist announced in December 2005 that Pitt was seeking to legally adopt Jolie's two children, Zahara and Cambodia-born Maddox Chivan." should be there because the text immediately before that states "In July 2005, Pitt accompanied Jolie to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where she adopted her second child, six-month-old Zahara Marle." and the text immediately after that states "On January 19, 2006, a California judge granted Jolie's request to change the children's surnames from 'Jolie' to "Jolie-Pitt'." The wording there now is inadequate because the middle text no longer clarifies the children being discussed (remember, the initial line only mentions Zahara Marle). It also seems very relevant to keep this part: "Since Vietnam does not allow unmarried couples to adopt, Jolie adopted Pax as a single parent. In April 2007, Jolie filed a request to legally change her son's surname from 'Jolie' to 'Jolie-Pitt', which was approved on May 31, 2007."

Other than that, there are still things pointed out by Nick that need fixing. Flyer22 (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I tagged the references with {{better source}} because I wanted to replace the sources with better ones. Simples. Please don't remove the tags, but do find better sources, then replace the existing ones with them. I've fixed two, and I've left the third one as an exercise to the reader - which is, find me a reliable source that confirms Pitt's twins were born on 12 July 2008 that isn't in a tabloid, a gossip mag, or a self-published source. If it was really that important, a more reputable source should have said so. Frankly, I was more interested in getting The Who in shape for a GA review than working on this, and I make no apologies for doing so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I stated "[t]here is no valid reason to ban People from this article, especially for uncontentious material; I will use it when I cannot find a better alternative for it." However, I might not even look for a "better source" in the case of uncontentious material or for matters such as who someone is dating, and that is specifically because of what I've stated to you above. If People is already in an article, then I will not be looking to remove it or replace it. Obviously, as shown by my interaction with John, I generally disagree with doing so. It's uncontentious material that you applied the "better source" tag to regarding this article (yes, even the birth date of Pitt's twins is uncontentious to me, given the public nature of it, sort of like the fact that Pitt has dated Gwyneth Paltrow), and so I find that tagging needless. Though I appreciate your help on these matters, I'm not at this talk page to debate the reliability/suitability of People, which is already happening at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard...with almost unanimous consensus that People is fine or even great to use for biographies of living persons and why that is, including how it is sometimes the more reputable source on the matter. Sometimes...it does cover important things that other reliable sources do not cover, especially because it usually covers such matters to a greater (more in-depth) extent. At least a few "more reputable" sources will have covered the same things, but with significantly less detail...thereby omitting things that can also be characterized as important to note; what you mentioned about Pitt's support for same-sex marriage is one example because a lot of people found/find that important, especially because he and Jolie previously declared that they would not get married until gay and lesbian couples get married. For that material, you removed People and some others sources for a source that simply "support[s] the basic premise of the text." The Esquire, People, Variety and Los Angeles Times sources are the better sources on this matter, in my opinion. Out of those sources, you removed People. But again, I'm not at this talk page to debate the use of People. And the parade.com, YouTube and Pink News sources were not needed and should be replaced with better sources if we are to include the text that was there for them, so you having removed those sources and their texts is obviously fine with me. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

...and as a complete aside[edit]

... if this article wasn't a FA, and somebody nominated it to WP:GAN this afternoon, I would take one look and quickfail it on criteria #5 (Stability). IMHO no article that degenerates into requiring full protection can be considered a shining beacon of what Wikipedia can produce. Something really worth reflecting on, that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disputes and/or WP:Edit wars break out even on featured articles, though, Ritchie. Flyer22 (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Ritchie. Of course, this article would also fail GAN in its current state for the poor sourcing, which between my efforts and yours I think we can address once the full protection expires. John (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
What you mean is that you will continue to WP:Edit war sourcing out of the article that the community has repeatedly told you is fine (not poor) for this article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not unheard of for featured articles to be temporarily full protected due to edit warring and keep the star. One of my FAs was full protected for three days earlier this year and I know off the top of my head that I've full protected at least one other FA due to edit warring. (There was a hurricane FA full protected for several months a year or two ago, but that was an unusual case.) Sometimes at WP:FAR they take several months to make a decision, so edit warring spread over a few days or even a week or two isn't going to be a deal-breaker. That being said, this may still fall short of the FA standards for other reasons, I haven't looked in detail. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a FAR[edit]

I contend that this article should never have been promoted with much of the sourcing coming from a gossip website. My removing tabloids like the Mail and the Sun provoked great anger from one editor here. But we really do need to resolve this situation. Would a Wikipedia:Featured article review be in order, if the article is still supported by a gossip website in a month from now? I see the sourcing has been improved, so maybe that won't be necessary. --John (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Which gossip website are you referring to? Not People I hope as the community has so far resoundingly rejected your view. Wikipedia:RSN#RfC:_Is_People_magazine_a_reliable_source_for_BLPs.3F. --NeilN talk to me 20:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
John has already gotten his answers here, here, here and here. That he refuses to accept those answers is not our problem. It's not this article's problem. It's time for him to drop the silly stick and stop disrupting Wikipedia at just about every turn on the matter of gossip sources. There is no ban on gossip sources, even for biographies of living persons, so long as they, like People, pass as WP:Reliable sources. And he obviously needs to read Wikipedia:Featured article review, because nominating this article for the invalid reasons he has put forth is not sufficient; that page makes it explicitly clear when to nominate an article for featured article review. And what it clarifies discounts this article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it is you who need to get over it, Flyer22. If you have concerns over my conduct, the community has advised you to open a RfC/U on me. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and ask yourself whether this article meets those criteria. I contend that there have been valid questions raised above (and which you accepted) over the quality of sourcing. That's 1c. Featured Articles are required to meet a far higher standard than our bare minimum; they are identified as being our best content. 1e (stability) may be a subsidiary concern, but we could overlook that so long as the sourcing is further improved. I take my hat off to User:Ritchie333 who has improved the article greatly by substantially implementing my edits, but we still have 5 references to People. If this was at FAR I would fail it on sourcing at the moment. --John (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Just so others know what John means by "get over it," he is referring to this edit summary by me. This article was judged by various editors as meeting the featured article criteria, while also using People as a source. As noted above in this section, and higher up on this talk page, the Wikipedia community has repeatedly told John that People is generally a good or great source for biographies of living persons. That includes featured biographies of living persons. And yet here he is again trying to get that source out of this article, going so far as to propose a featured article review because this article was nominated to featured article status using that source and still uses that source in a few spots. Utterly ridiculous. He will have a lot more articles to try to de-list based on such faulty reasoning. All in all, it is impossible to communicate with John when, among other things, he mischaracterizes me and my actions by stating: "[His] removing tabloids like the Mail and the Sun provoked great anger from one editor here." He and everyone else familiar with the dispute between us knows that it was People and the New York Daily News that I objected to with regard to his removing sources from this article, not the Daily Mail or The Sun, and that my anger concerning him is a combination of that and highly inappropriate behavior on his part. Not to mention...this bad-faith featured article review proposal. He still quite clearly needs to read and understand Wikipedia:Featured article review. There is no point in me trying to communicate with John any further on these matters. I am content with letting him continue to be proven wrong on any and every matter that I oppose him on. Also note that Ritchie implemented his own edits, not John's edits (and John's "my edits" claim is simply one more deceptive comment on his part). Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
If this is a serious request to determine whether a FAR should be opened, then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers should be pinged, as should any of the key players in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brad Pitt/archive2. I'll just rush off and do that. In the meantime, I think we've heard the opinions of the major contributors to this talk page now loud and clear, and I don't see anyone likely to change their mind in the near future on this. Let's get some fresh views in on what we can do with the article and if we can save its FA flag. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a need to ping others at all (I'd already contacted ThinkBlue via email early on during my aforementioned dispute with John, by the way, and ThinkBlue didn't respond; he or she is also sparingly/sporadically active on Wikipedia these days). And let me make this perfectly clear: I don't see this article's "FA flag" being in danger at all; as noted above, John is in the wrong. And we should not edit this article according to any of his demands or threats. An article cannot be de-listed simply because it uses a source (or sources) that an editor does not like, especially when it is a few instances of that source in the article and when that source has been resoundingly approved by the Wikipedia community. Let him take this article to featured article review, where he will be laughed right out of it, particularly as it is made clear (by me) to those in that review what is going on and to those at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard that he has pulled this mess. I could go ahead and make it easy on him right now and add an additional subsection to the aforementioned WP:RfC specifically asking "Is People permitted for use in featured article biographies of living persons?" since he has somehow absurdly taken the consensus there to mean "Good or great to use, but not for featured articles." But then again, he hasn't seemed at all to comprehend that consensus there is against him and has been repeatedly against him on this matter. To sum up, this is absurd. None of us should be taking John's above proposal seriously in the least, as though it has any shred of credence. I will use People sources and similar reliable sources for this article, and there is nothing John can do to stop that. Flyer22 (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Flyer, my good faith on you is starting to run out, so I'm going to be pretty straightforward now. Stop going on about John. What he does or doesn't do is ultimately irrelevant to somebody wanting to learn about Brad Pitt on Wikipedia. I don't mind which way or the other consensus has gone for using People on this article but please, please, please, don't make it personal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ritchie, and I fail to see why your good-faith in me is running out with regard this matter or in general. Nor do I want an explanation on that. It is not me who continues to needlessly disrupt this article or others. How many editors does it take to call out John's disruption at this article and similar articles before you stop giving him the benefit of the doubt? I guess that doesn't matter, since you apparently agree with his sourcing standards...except for allowing use of People sparingly. That he continues to disrupt this article is exactly why he is not irrelevant to this matter. That is his absurd proposal above, after all. And while we're being more open about our feelings, quite frankly, I'm tired of you giving aspects of John's actions that have no credence any bit of credence; I'm tired of you treating me as though I'm some stubborn child who needs lecturing on this matter. I'm not the one who needs the lecture. I'm not the one who is not dropping the stick. Various editors have made it abundantly clear that the person acting in those ways is John, and yet you continue to offer legitimacy to such actions and continue to imply that I am on the same level of disruption and/or am the more disruptive. It is not the name Flyer22 that keeps getting dragged to noticeboards over ridiculous sourcing matters and/or insults. That name is John. John made it personal before any of us did. John continues to make it personal, as others have quite clearly pointed out with regard to his various tactics and explicit insults. So know that I am extremely tired of John's disruptiveness and do not want to read any further defense of John. You are obviously free to add further defense of him, just as you are free to claim that he is irrelevant to the above proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits of your points here, I think these types of concerns about John's conduct would be better handled at an RFC/U than here on this talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, as I said at 21:18, on 25 September 2013. --John (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Mark, as noted above and as you can imagine, I am tired of the drama John has caused with regard to these matters. Going through a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (WP:RFC/U) regarding him would ensure more of the same drama (including some of his administrative friends and/or acquaintances ridiculously defending him) and would be nothing short of torture. So no thank you. Someone else can pull together all the incriminating evidence (and there's plenty) and start that WP:RFC/U. Flyer22 (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
That's perfectly fine with me, but in that case, could you stop going on about it all the time, as Ritchie has already told you? If you've been told where to go to complain about me and have decided not to, it's a bit boring and off-topic to bring it up here. As they say in politics, put up or shut up. We're here to discuss improving the Brad Pitt article. Cheers, --John (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I will stop "going on about it all the time" when it is no longer relevant to this article and other articles where you try to sidestep community consensus regarding the acceptability of People and other sources. As long as you are completely predictable and boring in your pursuit of sidestepping that consensus, I will continue to mention those antics; they are most relevant to this bad-faith/absurd featured article review proposal of yours. I did put up; you are not shutting up. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Very well, but I'm afraid that others may judge that you are being disruptive by making this point. I will make no further reply to you here, unless you come up with anything new, which I very much doubt you will do. --John (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Be more careful in the future not to ask someone to stop doing something when you yourself refuse to stop doing the thing that continues to lead to the something you want that person to stop doing. The only one making a point here is you -- by continuing to disrupt this community in the face of overwhelming consensus against your views. It is faulty for anyone to argue that noting such disruption so that others have better context as to the situation is also disruption. Stating "John has already gotten his answers here, here, here and here. That he refuses to accept those answers is not our problem. It's not this article's problem. It's time for him to drop the silly stick and stop disrupting Wikipedia at just about every turn on the matter of gossip sources." is completely relevant to this discussion. You have not put forth any new arguments to support your views; the burden is on you to do so. Not me, considering that the community has overwhelmingly supported my views on this matter. You will not succeed in keeping People out of this article, and that is a fact that you need to accept. Oh, and be more careful not to intentionally WP:BAIT; I will be more careful not to respond to it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there a real issue here or is this just silliness hat's being imported to this article from elsewhere to make a point? If it's the latter, please take it back to where it came from and come back here if you reach any conclusions. If it's the former, I was involved with this article at the time of the FAC; I'm not familiar with the sourcing, but I'd be wiling to pitch in to fix any issues (though not switch one editor's preference for another). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Per above, it's the latter, HJ Mitchell...except that the big dispute started here. As seen above, it was taken to other places and resolved. Despite that, editors at this article are facing more of the same because of one editor's personal preference. Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi HJ. Speaking as someone with some knowledge of FAR standards and procedures, how would you have answered if someone had raised at the time (as I believe they should have) questions like: What makes "Dana Kennedy and Kristin Boehm. The Jolie-Pitts Welcome a Son & Daughter. People. July 13, 2008 [Retrieved July 18, 2008]" a good source for "She gave birth to son Knox Léon and daughter Vivienne Marcheline on July 12, 2008 in Nice, France."? That's an example, and there are several others. If we can sort this out here and improve the sourcing, well and good. If not, I am suggesting that we would then need to go to a review. --John (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell, for what makes that a good source and for why it is perfectly fine to use in this article, refer to the linked discussions above regarding People (especially the WP:RfC), if you have not already. It would also be valuable if you, as someone truly familiar with the featured article process (like me), and likely the featured article review process, explained to John why an article cannot be de-listed as featured because of the objections he has. You have already sort of touched on that by stating "Is there a real issue here or is this just silliness [t]hat's being imported to this article from elsewhere to make a point?" and "I'd be wil[l]ing to pitch in to fix any issues (though not switch one editor's preference for another." Flyer22 (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • My fundamental issue is that there is content in the article which could and ought to be cited to a better source. The specific areas of contention I personally have currently are the twins' birthdate (still tagged with {{better source}} as I write this), and the specific figures of donations given by the Jolie-Pitt Foundation. In these instances, I would prefer for another source, ideally a broadsheet or a book, to support the existing People sources so we can be confident that the figures and dates are both correct, and (particularly in the case of the donation figures) important enough to mention in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry information again[edit]

Thesouthernhistorian45 made these edits to the article:[2][3][4][5]. They also show me reverting Thesouthernhistorian45 twice and explaining to him that this source does not count as a WP:Reliable source (at least not for this information and not at all on Wikipedia), and Nymf reverting him once. The first time I reverted him, I didn't link to the WP:Reliable sources guideline. But I did the second time. As for the content he removed (shown in that first diff-link), I don't mind much that it was removed, especially since it was not sourced in the best way, which is why I didn't revert him on that. To him, it was not truly sourced; I told him that a URL is not needed for a source to be counted as valid and I pointed him to Wikipedia:Citing sources for the acceptable ways to cite sources on Wikipedia. For example, it is common that something in a television or film article will be cited to an episode or to the film because those serve as the sources; this style of sourcing has been brought up at WP:TV and WP:FILM, which WP:FILM editors such as Betty Logan or Erik would tell you. In fact, plot sections are hardly ever sourced in television or film articles because the television or film serves as the source. In other words, anyone can view those pieces to confirm those matters, and it's often that many people have viewed those matters...so the information is not contentious. In this Brad Pitt case, it's also a television episode matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Also note that a bot rescued the source that Thesouthernhistorian45 removed, considering that the source was used twice in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014: Robin Givens/other people he's dated[edit]

Ben234erty (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)His relationship wiki is not complete he dated mike tysons exwife robin givens in 1993 he talks about it in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBys6ZypNqQ

  • Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Unfortunately, YouTube is not normally considered a reliable source. Technical 13 (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This used to be in the article, cited to this article. It was removed—along with a lot of other content—during the People debate last September. I have no opinion on whether this particular info should be restored. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It will be added back (all of the others he has dated), per my comments above on that. And I might not even look for a different source for that matter either, since People magazine was deemed okay to use in such cases; that information is not contentious information whatsoever, considering it concerns well-known facts (such as the fact that he dated Gwyneth Paltrow, which is currently mentioned in the lead but not lower in the article; a WP:LEAD violation). The main editor who objected to such material can take that matter to the community again if he wants, whether a WP:FA review or whatever, but the community has already spoken on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Corvoe reintroduced the Robin Givens connection, but he did so in a dubious/arguably scandalous way -- with a claim from Mike Tyson that Pitt was caught in a sexual act with Givens. I removed that material, per WP:BLP, and instead reintroduced the text that was originally there but was removed during the People magazine debate. Like WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." My article interaction with Corvoe on this matter is documented here, here and here. Like I stated in that second edit summary, "[I] will look to add additional sources at a later date, per what was discussed on [this] talk page [about using a source other than People magazine for such material]." Regarding this message that Corvoe left on my talk page, I will direct him to this discussion section (though he is clearly already watching this article/talk page).

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Robin Givens/other people he's dated" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me here, Flyer22. I wasn't aware this had been previously discussed. I'm not arguing for or against its inclusion, I just saw a request for the addition of info about Givens in the user feedback and figured I'd add it, since I found those sources. On second thought, including info claimed by a man famous for his diet of ears was probably a bad call. I'm glad you added the information about other relationships, though. It's certainly info that many would find interesting, in my opinion. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome, Corvoe. And I understand why you added the information. Glad that you have rethought this and what is best for a WP:BLP article in such cases. Flyer22 (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

His greatest fear[edit]

When visiting glasgow he thought his life was under threat when a glasgow gangster called shug odonnell was going to kill him so he fled glasgow ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.242.147 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC) This is a test edit, I presume?[[User:OnBeyondZebrax]] (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding genres to lead[edit]

I tried adding genres to the lead. This is already done for some films, so I added genres for all the films. I think it adds useful information for the reader, and gives the reader a better understanding of his film work. Flyer22 deleted all the added genres. I would like to know what other people think about this issue.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's how it looks with the genres....

William Bradley "Brad" Pitt (born December 18, 1963) is an American actor and filmmaker. He has received a Golden Globe Award, a Screen Actors Guild Award, and three Academy Award nominations in acting categories, and received two further Academy Award nominations, winning one, for productions of his film production company Plan B Entertainment. He has been described as one of the world's most attractive men, a label for which he has received substantial media attention.[1][2]

Pitt first gained recognition as a cowboy hitchhiker in the road movie Thelma & Louise (1991). His first leading roles in big-budget productions came with the period drama A River Runs Through It (1992), the romantic horror film Interview with the Vampire (1994), and epic drama film Legends of the Fall (1994). He gave critically acclaimed performances in the crime thriller Seven and the science fiction film 12 Monkeys (both 1995), the latter earning him a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor and an Academy Award nomination. Pitt starred in the cult film Fight Club (1999) and a comedy heist film which became a major international hit, Ocean's Eleven (2001) and its sequels, Ocean's Twelve (2004) and Ocean's Thirteen (2007). His greatest commercial successes have been epic war film Troy (2004), the romantic comedy action film, which co-starred Angelina Jolie, Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005), and the apocalyptic action film World War Z (2013). Pitt received his second and third Academy Award nominations for his leading performances in the romantic fantasy drama film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) and the sports drama film Moneyball (2011). He produced the crime drama The Departed (2006) and the historical drama film 12 Years a Slave (2013), both of which won the Academy Award for Best Picture, and also the experimental drama film The Tree of Life and Moneyball, both of which garnered Best Picture nominations.User:OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC) User:OnBeyondZebraxTALK 22:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you here (followup edits here and here) because I feel that it is unnecessary cluttering of the lead. If people want to find out more about a film, they can obviously click on the link for the film. The lead, as you know, is a summary. We go into further detail lower in the article. I also don't think that the second paragraph needs to be split. And I don't like that you changed "Pitt lives with actress Angelina Jolie" to "Pitt has lived with actress Angelina Jolie." It's a present tense matter, so the wording should be in clear present tense. Flyer22 (talk) 11:09, 24 m 2014 (UTC)
From a consistency point of view why are genres listed for some films. In those cases where it is mentioned, I think it adds helpful information for the reader, without the reader having to click on the film to read about it. You said people can click on the link, but this is not always the case, for example with a reader who has printed out the article at the library or a person using a screen reader. Looking forward for different points of view.OnBeyondZebraxTALK 17:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that you did similar with the lead at the Jennifer Aniston article, and were reverted. In either the Brad Pitt or Jennifer Aniston case, it's unnecessary clutter; that's how I feel on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Update: OnBeyondZebrax and I further discussed the matter on my talk page, where he brought up the Angelina Jolie article as an example. I mentioned there that I am fine with an actor or actress article lead mentioning film genres if it's done as seamlessly as that article does it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2015: Shiloh's gender[edit]

Please could you change his childs name from Shiloh to John, as he is now identifying as a male. 86.179.160.150 (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 02:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Along with this, User:Timeraner had made an uncited change, now reverted, at Angelina Jolie removing "daughter" from the reference to Shiloh, with the edit summary " removed references to gender where there is a questioning child." There was no citation given to that effect, and all RS cites refer to her as a daughter. Aside from contradicting RS cites in violation of WP:BLP, we also need to watch for WP:FRINGE. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Reliable source The Advocate [[6]]. Timeraner (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
From it, "This article uses 'they' as a gender-neutral, singular pronoun in an effort to respect the young Jolie-Pitt's gender identity, whatever that may end up being." Timeraner (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The removal of "daughter" is a compromise to correctly using John, which I support 100%. Timeraner (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Dr.K., this is not "specifying the gender of the child" because of [source] saying daughter is the wrong gender. Timeraner (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I see. I didn't know about the underlying controversy. I have restored your edit pending further discussion by other editors, although I am not interested in this issue enough to pursue it further. Thank you for your clarification. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Timeraner and others, you might want to see this discussion on the Angelina Jolie talk page. That discussion/debate, like this one, centers on Shiloh's gender identity and that no one (other than some people close to Shiloh) knows if Shiloh is transgender or not. Tenebrae also reverted you there at that article.
On a side note: I added ": Gender of Shiloh" ": Shiloh's gender" to the heading above so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help locating this discussion once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There is no proof that Shiloh Jolie-Pitt wants to be a boy, wants to be called John, is gay, transgender, anything. She may be all of these things but we don't know. It's a media-fabricated story.

The facts:

  1. At two, Shiloh wanted to be called John because of the Peter Pan character (per Brad Pitt's 2008 interview on the Oprah show). No evidence that this is ongoing.
  2. Shiloh has been exclusively wearing "boy" clothes and a "boy" haircut. At three, she wanted to dress and act like a boy because of her brothers (per Jolie's 2010 interview with Vanity Fair).
  3. Jolie and Pitt exclusively refer to their daughter in interviews as "Shiloh" and "she".

Last December, Shiloh (now eight) attended a premiere in a tuxedo. The Daily Telegraph then published a story falsely saying Brad Pitt "recently" said that she wants to be called John, using his quote from 2008. Other media then ran with the "”Shiloh Jolie-Pitt is transgender" story, including The Advocate and international newspapers.

AfterEllen realized their mistake and subsequently amended their article: "While The Telegraph recently reported a story using a Brad Pitt quote from 2010 stating Shiloh prefers to be called “John” and use male pronouns, more recent interviews with Angelina Jolie have seen her referring to Shiloh as “Shiloh” and using female pronouns, so that is what we used in this piece." (The Pitt quote has been republished so many times, but it's even older.)

Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Prayer for the wild at heart, for clearing up these rumors gone wild and one editor's political agenda. It is absolutely, unquestionably, basic biography to specify genders of children, particularly when the name does not clearly specify. This is so basic, I'm thoroughly surprised to see how it's even a debate.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: Timeraner also removed "daughter" from the Brangelina article. Flyer22 (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Pitt and Lewis age difference[edit]

Darkstar1st, because of this edit, I noticed (earlier this hour) that you made this edit, where you took out the age difference matter, stating, "they met in 1989, she was 18, started dating a year later." I'm not asking that the text you removed be returned. I've started this section to point out that WP:Reliable sources that report on Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis's relationship usually note the age difference and state that Lewis was 16 years old when they started dating. This is whether it's the People source currently used in the article (seen here), a The Guardian source (seen here), a Biography.com source (seen here), a Business Insider source (seen here), and so on. I see a few poorer sources stating that she was age 17 (for example, this The Huffington Post source), but what WP:Reliable sources state that she was age 18 when they started dating? Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

you are correct, i found a few sources stating 17 as well. [7] and [8]. i felt the passage was not meant to improve the article, rather an attempt to smear Pitt. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Darkstar1st (last time WP:Pinging you to this discussion because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies or that the article is on your WP:Watchlist), that The Huffington Post source you cited is the one I cited above, a little before your post. And that The Telegraph source you cited doesn't state that she was 17 when she started dating Pitt; it states, "she'd dated Brad Pitt; been nominated for an Oscar when just 17." As for the passage being "an attempt to smear Pitt," I don't think that it was. I noted above that the sources usually mention the Pitt and Lewis age difference; they make a big deal out of it. So Wikipedia seems to have been following that style. I understand how the text can make people uncomfortable since Lewis was not yet age 18 (the standard age of majority), and I figured that's why you removed the material, but it's not like Pitt was a sexual predator. All we know is that they were dating. And, in the case that it was sexual, we know that the age of consent varies in the United States and elsewhere. Anyway, like I noted in this WP:Dummy edit, I don't mind much if we leave the material out. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
One more thing: Going by The Guardian source, they dated for four years; so, on the topic of a likely sexual relationship between them, Lewis was age 20 by the time they called it quits. Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
good points all. i agree it should be left out, meaningless trivia about the age and age difference of a girlfriend seems beneath encyclopedic BLP. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Where to place the Brad Pitt filmography link[edit]

With this article and with the Angelina Jolie article, SNUGGUMS deleted the filmography sections since they consisted of only a link to the filmography article in question; see what MOS:Paragraphs states about having a section for a little bit of material. SNUGGUMS instead added the link to the See also section. In the discussion at the Angelina Jolie article, I was opposed to the link being added to the See also section because it was very likely that people looking for Jolie's filmography would not think to look there or would otherwise accidentally overlook the link. Others felt the same. So I suggested the following: "Perhaps place the filmography link at the top of the Career section? Maybe place it right underneath the 1991–97: Early work subsection, since placing it immediately under the Career section might cause it to be overlooked from the table of contents if editors simply click on the 1991–97: Early work subsection?" I did similar with the Brad Pitt article, but FrB.TG moved the link up so that it is immediately under the Career section, and I reverted.

Thoughts on this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I personally have no preference as to whether it is placed right after "Career" or right after its 1987–1993 subsection as long as it isn't just a filmography section solely consisting of that one link, which goes against MOS:PARAGRAPHS as Flyer mentioned above. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what to say about where to place the link. I think we can also link his filmography in the lead (just like we link one's awards and nominations, like [[List of awards and nominations received by XXX|XXX's achievements]] include) with words like "his career", "gained recognition" or such. -- Frankie talk 21:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The lead might be a better solution, FrB.TG/Frankie, since it is the area readers generally look to first, and a lot of readers (perhaps most, according to different Wikipedia reports) don't read past the lead of Wikipedia articles. In this case, keeping WP:See also in mind, I think it would also be fine to repeat the link in the See also section. Betty Logan, any opinions on this? If we go with FrB.TG's suggestion, should we do the same at the Angelina Jolie article? Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, readers only read the lead and the infobox, and as filmography plays the most important role (after all an actor is known due to his work) in the life of an "actor", we should link it in the lead. -- Frankie talk 12:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't state that "readers only read the lead and the infobox," but, yes, a good number of them (maybe the majority) do that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I support linking it in the lead as opposed to placing it in a Career subsection. If a filmography section is preferred, however, just summarize the filmography article in the section. As suggested by MOS:PARAGRAPHS, the section can also contain a bullet list of selected credits. Lapadite (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I directed Lapadite to this discussion. Lapadite, now that it's linked in the lead, it would be fine to also link it in the See also section, per what I stated in my "22:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)" post above. But I still prefer it in the Career section where it is instead of in the See also section, since readers commonly come to these articles to find the filmography material. As I've noted, it is likelier they will look for that material in the Career section than it is they will look for it in the See also section. And as for a selected filmography section or a WP:Summary style approach, we did a selected filmography with the Angelina Jolie article; see the aforementioned discussion above. Betty Logan (note: I WP:Pinged her wrongly above; should have pinged her username instead of her talk page) was for a selected filmography section, and Chasewc91 (Chase) was against it. Chasewc91 also wasn't keen on my WP:Summary style suggestion, for reasons noted in that discussion. I personally think we should usually be consistent in style when it comes to filmography sections on Wikipedia, which is one reason, for this topic, I've tied this article to the Angelina Jolie article; the other reason is because the articles are related. On another note: It's easy to overlook the filmography section with how it is currently linked in the lead -- with a pipelink that is a bit of a WP:EGG. Flyer22 (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it is important that there is clearly identifiable link to a filmography article if the filmography is not included in the main article itself. You could add a hatnote to the top of the article or perhaps use the "notable works" parameter in the infobox to link to the filmography; that way it will be positioned prominently for anyone just looking for a list of credits. Betty Logan (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Well the present link in the lead is misleading, as "recognition" suggests accolades, or awards and nominations. I disagree with not having a filmography section; I think it's counterintuitive and doesn't serve the reader at all. Readers wouldn't look for the filmography of an actor in the See also section, like they wouldn't look for the discography of a musical artist in See also, or the bibliography of a writer there. So I'm all for a summary in a filmography section (and linking to the main article). If that's not preferred for some reason, and a lead link isn't feasible, I'd go with Betty's alternative along with a Career section link. Lapadite (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As a reader, I am frustrated about this arrangement in actors' articles. I do not understand the logic in going to an actor's article and not having immediate access to the list of films they're appeared in. Annoyingly, it requires an additional click, and here, it seems like the filmography link is way too hidden. I do agree that a "Filmography" section with only that link is bad structuring, but that is because editors lack consideration when they fork content away from the actor's article, rendering an awkward vacuum. My suggestion is this: have a "Filmography" section that is a simple list of films—title and release year—and link to the filmography sub-article with a {{Further}} template. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Erik, I'm not sure how you found this discussion, but thanks for weighing in on it. You, Lapadite77 and Betty Logan have all made solid points on this matter. Although I think the Career section is an okay place to have the filmography link, I understand what you mean about its obscurity level. I think we should go ahead and implement a decent solution, for this article and the Angelina article, based on what we've all stated above. For consistency, this solution should generally also apply to other actor articles that have a filmography article counterpart. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

WTF?[edit]

WHY does one have to do a text search (literally!) to find the link to this ACTORS "filmography" table"? The table itself has been split off. Now there isn't even a subcategory for it, therefore listing it in the TOC. One has to literally search the entire article for it. I see that there is supposedly a link to it in the lead, but that is not at all obvious, as the link does not say "filmography", it says "gained recognition"... which one would suspect links to an awards table. I tried fixing this, but was immediately reverted by someone who apparently needs to read WP:OWN. In my edit, I had also suggested adding a selected filmography, like what is found in other actors pages. I will try that then, as the current lay-out is unacceptable. - theWOLFchild 11:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you please comment on article and not on "me"? I have not stated that I "own" the article. This was already discussed before and just as you said "you need to gain consensus" for that. -- Frankie talk 11:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
You may think everything is about you, but it's not. The reason this was discussed, is because others had the same problem I did, which obviously was not resolved. I have found a solution that has already been established on similar articles. - theWOLFchild 12:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
It certainly isn't about me but you can't deny that you have mentioned me in a sarcastic manner. -- Frankie talk 12:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
"Glass houses", sport-o. - theWOLFchild 22:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
As seen with this edit, I moved the location of the new filmography section (the George Clooney article also has the filmography section as the last section before the References section, etc.). I also see that, looking at the Awards and nominations section, which consists of only a link to the main article, we weren't being consistent with the MOS:Paragraphs guidance about not including headings for a little bit of material. Also, MOS:Paragraphs does not state that such sections should ever exist. Per the discussion above about the filmography link setup, and this subsection discussion, having a filmography section and/or an awards and nominations section are clearly exceptions to the usual "don't have headings for a little bit of material" guidance. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey Flyer! How u been? I don't care if the section is moved, as long as it's there. It's amazing how these articles get turned upside-down when you look away for awhile... - theWOLFchild 22:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The "WTF?" in my watchlist drew my attention. I notice the article now has a selected filmograpy, which as I recall was originally deemed inappropriate at the Angelina Jolie article. Is a selected list now acceptable? 'Cause in that case I'm restoring the one at the AJ article. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Prayer for the wild at heart, per what I stated above, I'm obviously in agreement with you. I noted in that aforementioned discussion that, when a filmography section has its own Wikipedia article, the standard is to have a filmography section with a little bit of content (usually a link to the main article rather than a selected filmography with a link to the main filmography article). Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Why would a selected filmog be "inappropriate" on the Jolie page? Clooney has one. Cruise has one. Pitt now has one. So, yeah... go ahead and restore it. (I see that some of the ridiculous but usual failings of this project are rearing their ugly heads again... ) - theWOLFchild 22:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Thewolfchild, see the aforementioned Angelina Jolie discussion. As I noted above, Chasewc91 (Chase) took issue with having a selected filmography section. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

So is there consensus to keep a filmography section for both Pit and Jolie articles? I think this issue should be specifically addressed in the MOS btw. Lapadite (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine either way with what is decided here for both articles, but I don't think we should be specifying content structure to this degree in the MOS. There are valid reasons for spinning out filmographies, and a "selected filmography" creates its own problems (such as how selective, and what is the criteria?) which some editors may feel is simply not worth the hassle. What the MOS needs to do in this case is specifiy where the links are positioned within the article in the event that the article does not include a filmography of any form, and I still think a hatnote or a link the infobox are the best solutions. As someone stated above, it is unreasonable to expect readers to perform a text search. Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, to suggest where such links should be placed in the article in such an event, but also recommend that filmographies are easily made available to readers, the best location being a filmography section. To not be at odds with MOS:PARAGRAPH, it would recommend a summary-style content of the section. In the case of no filmography section, it should offer the alternatives you presented. Lapadite (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a selected filmography would help but Wolf could you explain to me on what basis have you listed those films? I mean are they neutral 'cause the readers do not know why are only those films of his are here? I think @SNUGGUMS: might better explain. -- Frankie talk 07:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"Selected" lists (including filmographies) are most definitely NOT neutral since they're cherry-picked based on some unknown and potentially biased criteria. No valid reason to cherry-pick films. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
They aren't "cherry picked"... I listed, for the most part, the films that are mentioned in the lead on the separate filmography page. it seemed rather fitting and I didn't see how anyone could complain, since there was no complaint about those films being listed in the lead in the first place. - theWOLFchild 23:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


Given what I stated in the aforementioned Angelina Jolie discussion, this is not a misinterpretation, SNUGGUMS. I did feel that some text, like a summary style setup, is better than a selected filmography; now I'm not sure. See what Chase stated about my summary-style suggestion in the Angelina Jolie discussion. As for how to do a selected filmography, Prayer for the wild at heart gave a solid explanation in that discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't prefer selected lists over a summary, but I don't think establishing a criteria is a hard task. For instance, first film + major-award winners and/or nominees + block busters, would be a solid, uncontroversial criteria I think. Lapadite (talk)
Discussion about Jolie should be on the Jolie talk page. Discussion about "selected filmographies" should be done at MoS or the WP Film project. - theWOLFchild 23:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

now what... ?[edit]

@Chasewc91: - You Boldly changed the section header and the link. I Reverted you. Since you mentioned WP:BRD in your edit summary, I figured you knew that D meant "Discuss", not "Do" yet another revert. You also mentioned "having reasons", which you have also failed to list here. So... what are they? (by the way... we should stick to BRD, not BRRRRRD... ) - theWOLFchild 22:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

BRD doesn't give you a fucking excuse to just revert whatever you want with no reason. What am I to discuss with you if you don't provide reasons for reverting? My reason? It removes the unneeded parenthetical from the section title and gives a more descriptive hatnote. What are your reasons other than IDLI? And please kindly take the "you shouldn't have reverted" argument elsewhere when that is what you have continued to do. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
A. There is no need to be so angry and emotional. Or rude. B. Show me, exactly where in this diff is your edit summary? Oh, wait... there isn't one. So don't go and blow your top over something you yourself are guilty of. (Twice! in fact.) I already reverted your first edit, and I cited "BRD" then, in the summary, but you didn't bother to post anything in response. Then the second time you make this cryptic "I have reasons" comment, but again you failed to go to the talk to state them. (and until you do, wp:IDLI could just as easily apply to you.) Now... I am here, happily willing to "discuss" this with you, if you can do so in a calm and mature manner. - theWOLFchild 05:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Please spare me the etiquette essay and just get to why you reverted me in the first place. I've already given you my reasons for why I prefer my version (see last post in this thread); you haven't given me your reasons for why you prefer your version. I don't care for stonewalling. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I had hoped you would've calmed down by now. There really is no need for the hostility. Your excuse for the change was; "It removes the unneeded parenthetical from the section title and gives a more descriptive hatnote.". To that I ask; does it make it better? And further, do you have a wiki-policy to support this? Or is it just your personal preference? You see, I didn't just randomly decide to edit it that way, I used the long and widely accepted set-up on the George Clooney page. I couldn't find a policy that disallows parenthesis, and obviously the hatnote is perfectly acceptable or it wouldn't exist. Also, if you enter "Filmography (selected)" into the wp search, you'll see that there are a hundred other pages with the same set-up. So, really... I only think this comes down to you "not liking it". But, I will say this; it's not as big of a deal to me as it clearly is to you, so if you can gain consensus to change this set-up on all the articles that have it to the way you like it, I won't challenge it. Just try not to be so angry. - theWOLFchild 09:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
It's funny that you mistake my minor aggravation at you failing to get to the point as anger and hostility, but I digress. You mention "articles", plural, yet you only mention George Clooney, which doesn't even have any good- or featured-class distinction? Where is your policy supporting this? There are a "hundred" other pages, apparently, which is clearly only a fraction of the articles in Category:Actors. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's funny that you mistake my minor aggravation at you failing to get to the point as anger and hostility, but I digress.

LOL! Um, sure. Like they say; "if it walks, talks and quacks like a duck...". You call all that hostility, profanity and belligerence only "minor aggravation"...? I'd hate to see your blood pressure.

You mention "articles", plural, yet you only mention George Clooney, which doesn't even have any good- or featured-class distinction?

I mentioned the one I took this specific set-up from. What does "good or featured class" have to do anything? There are plenty of articles here without that... are you saying they're all worthless?

Where is your policy supporting this?

Why do I need one? I already shown that that the set-up I used is in use in plenty of articles, and that there is no policy prohibiting this set-up. You're the one desperately trying to change it. So I'll ask again, if this isn't merely your personal preference, then where is your policy to support your revert?

There are a "hundred" other pages, apparently, which is clearly only a fraction of the articles in Category:Actors.

LOL! You just complained that I only mentioned the Clooney page. Now you acknowledge that I also mentioned a hundred others? (of course, you did say "apparently". Does that mean you couldn't be bothered to do the simple search that I mentioned, in support of my edit?)
Anyway... I don't know why you're going on and on (and on) about this. You wanna change it? Fine... you know how it works. Go to the wiki-project for actors, (and/or wp:blp) and make a case seeking consensus to change all these articles to set-up you prefer. (without parenthesis and a specific hatnote). Like I said, if you get it, I will no longer challenge you on this. Any further debate here seems pointless and quite frankly, I don't care for your attitude... regardless if it's raging anger or "minor aggravation", it's still rude. Have a nice day. - theWOLFchild 05:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I've made a different change that retitles the heading to remove the parenthetical - "Selected filmography" instead of "Filmography (selected)". The {{mainlist}} hatnote informs the reader that the list of films included in this article is not his complete filmography, which is clearer than just "Main article: X". I still don't know what the problem was with my initial change, but before you revert again, I'm going to ask kindly that you explain your reasons for doing so, as I just did. Otherwise, you're reverting for the sake of reverting and that's disruptive. Your block log shows a history of harassment and edit warring as recently as February of this year, and your stonewalling and seemingly arbitrary opposition to anything I do seems to continue that trend. I'm not going to play games with a known edit warrior. Either explain your reasons for reverting and actually have a proper discussion with me, or stop reverting. It's that simple. Chase (talk | contributions) 14:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
So, in others words... you just went and edited it your way, again. You seem to think that doing it without a revert and making the slightest variation somehow... magically... makes it 'ok'. It doesn't. It's called gaming the system and it's not allowed. Just as you knew straight out reverting would not be allowed. You know what you need to do. Quit with all the bitching and crying, quit with the silly short-cuts, and follow the rules. You can go climbing through my history and drag it out all you like, it doesn't change a thing. (it's kind of creepy, but otherwise... ) You want to change it... get consensus, like everyone else. - theWOLFchild 17:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Atheist[edit]

So, you're saying that, despite him stating in this interview (which I linked in my edit summary) "I'm probably 20% atheist, 80% agnostic", you're saying he didn't say it? I get you're really picky about articles, but a), there's a source where's he's saying it without ambiguity, and when did using the argument "not relevant to his notability" hold any water? I'm not trying to state he's best known as not believing in God, I'm just using a source I found to provide backing for a category. What's the point of the category if we start picking and choosing which articles to use categories on, despite the category existing to be used? Rusted AutoParts 09:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You have to be extra careful when dealing with categories surrounding religion or lack thereof. WP:BLPCAT is a policy, not a guideline. There can be no ambiguity involved. His reply is ambigious. We can, should and have to be picky. It is not relevant to Brad Pitt's notability, but it is relevant to Richard Dawkins' notability. Like wise Ayn Rand, but not Bobcat Goldthwait. See the difference? Nymf (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that "20% atheist, 80% agnostic" is clear that he identifies as an atheist, but I also don't see that the category needs to be added. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I just removed more of this stuff from the article. The source used was clearly not a reliable source for just about anything, but particularly not for a BLP. @Rusted AutoParts, you're an experienced enough editor to know that sources belong in articles, not in edit summaries. I also think the New York Daily News is not reliable, although it's better than the one used by the latest user. It's New York version of an English gossipy tabloid. Finally, I agree with Nymf that it's not relevant to Pitts's notability, regardless if the self-identification could be reliably sourced. Perhaps the best way to resolve this is to take it to WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
As seen with this edit, Bbb23 is talking about an edit made by Joef1234 (talk · contribs). With this edit, I also reverted Joef1234. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
And here, here and here, I see that Joef1234 is adding such material to other articles as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the whole point of the "Personal Life" section to show things about the actor that isn't about his/her career. Pitt discusses his atheism a lot, so it must be important to him. There are many other articles that for well known figures that states their religious beliefs, why can't it go here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joef1234 (talkcontribs)

Angelina spousal date[edit]

Is it correct to say 2014-present? He's been with her ten years now.  — Calvin999 11:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but they officially married in 2014. -- Frankie talk 11:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015[edit]

103.254.230.4 (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Request is empty. Sam Sailor Talk! 20:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015[edit]

My request is to add the following link at the External Link section:

(Redacted)

This external page shows all movies available on Netflix starring Brad Pitt. The correctness of this information can be verified with a Netflix account on www.netflix.com

82.171.146.55 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I am declining this request because I do not feel that having a link to Netflix is really appropriate on this page. It seems to me like it is too close to advertising for comfort and may break our external link policy. If anyone else has a second opinion on this feel free to override me. --Stabila711 (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016[edit]

He has received one more Oscar nomination for producing The Big Short. Kindly update. 121.6.193.135 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Brad_Pitt is what you seem to be looking for. I think. --allthefoxes (Talk) 17:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

CelebrityNetWorth[edit]

Is it really unreliable? It seems to be accepted in some articles and rejected in others, not to mention that TIME even cited the source. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Two weeks before earning his degree?[edit]

It is surprisingly common for public figures to have left university or college just prior to earning their degrees. That has always seemed odd to me. No one spends 3-5 years (or more) studying, and then doesn't bother to finish the degree. I doubt that Pitt dropped out a mere 2 weeks prior to qualifying. It is more likely he was failing his courses, and knew he would not pass the final tests. In any event, no one simply qualifies at the end of a period - there are tests to be passed. Does anyone have any more reliable information on Mr Pitt's education?125.236.202.112 (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Species named after Brad Pitt[edit]

Conobregma bradpitti, described in 2016, was "Named after the senior author's favourite film actor Brad Pitt, whose poster adorned the wall of her laboratory during her doctoral studies." (source: Butcher, Buntika A.; Quicke, Donald D. L.; Shreevihar, Santhosh; Ranjith, Avunjikkattu Parambil (2016). "Major range extensions for two genera of the parasitoid subtribe Facitorina, with a new generic synonymy (Braconidae, Rogadinae, Yeliconini).". ZooKeys. 584: 109–120. doi:10.3897/zookeys.584.7815. ). jonkerztalk 17:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead -- attractiveness as part of notability[edit]

I've centralized the discussion at Talk:Angelina Jolie#The lead -- attractiveness as part of notability. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Affair and Divorce[edit]

Might want to mention the reason for his divorce from Angelina.

angelina-dumped-brad-after-private-eye-uncovered-marion-cotillard-affair

166.70.60.63 (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

At this time, that's a tabloid rumor. And there's another prominent one concerning anger and alcohol accusations. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Less rumour but still I would say not ripe for including in the article. Placing here in case anything comes of it so there is a good source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016[edit]

In the early work section, when talking about his performance in A River Runs Through It, there is a missing word (is, was) before the quote begins.

2001:1970:5299:5D00:6C00:69B2:48B3:C368 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - I see nothing wrong with that paragraph, but note that User:Sammatti tried making a similar alteration, which was reverted - I hope you are not Asking the other parent - Arjayay (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
No, based on the timing, I think Sammatti added "is" based on the IP's request. I undid it because in my view it made it worse. First, as you say, the way it was written was fine. It didn't require a verb. Second, if you were going to add a verb, it should have been "was" based on parallelism. All in all, it didn't need any changes at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Changed it because I thought "thought" was "though". Misread it multiple times. -Sammatti

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Brad Pitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2017[edit]

Change "In 2016 it was announced that Pitt will star in upcoming sequel to World War Z, with official release date set as 9 June 2017." to "In 2016 it was announced that Pitt will star in upcoming sequel to World War Z, with official release date set as 9 June 2017. However in early 2017 the release date has been announced to be indefinitely delayed."

Reference: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/world-war-z-sequel-pulled-release-calendar-972612 Muchomachu (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Done -- Dane talk 20:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)