Talk:Brad Pitt/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Please add True Romance to Filmography

Brad Pitt was the stoner smoking out of the honey bear in True Romance. Who should I tell this to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.23.49 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Brangelina split?

Has this been confirmed or is it just media speculation? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1245790/Angelina-Jolie-jealous-Jennifer-Aniston.html (Not the 'Will he get back together with Jennifer Aniston' part, as that is clearly them speculating. But have they actually split?)--90.196.207.89 (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's speculation. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll give you a clue - It's speculation every week that this is reported. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Many CREDIBLE sources, ncluding the london times are picking up on it this time, however at this point, it is speculation. The couple themselves are denying it, so I think it's best to hold off until more definative statements come out. --Tacit tatum (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It was first reported in the New York Post, if that gives a clue. The article said they "filed for separation", although I was unaware that people who are not married would do that. Gossip. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to get my ten pence worth (since this has been lighting up my watchlist) it is speculation and gossip at best. Anything about a split does not belong in a WP article until and unless they come out and confirm it on camera. The rumours may be notable in themselves, but I'll leave that to the judgement of those more knowledgeable on the subject. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 01:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So, the rumor has been denied now, [1]. Nymf _talk/contr. 00:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, they're suing for those suppose reports of them breaking up. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Notes from copy edit

Hello- just gave this a bit of a copy edit. It was in fine shape already, so my edits mainly added variety to the sentence structures and word choices. The "career" section could probably still make better use of summary style. A couple of points :

• The sentence on Snatch says the film received mixed reviews, but goes on to quote only praise
• The note about Pax's adoption made me wonder if Pax was his name (and if Zahara and Maddox had those names) prior to the adoption. The phrasing makes it sound as though he did, but the inclusion of Jolie's surname there jars. Can anyone clarify?

Otherwise, looking good. The article, I mean ;) Gonzonoir (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edit, now I believe the article is written in an FA style way. :) I'll work on the Snatch bit. I know the film received mixed reaction, that is why I ended up adding that San Francisco Chronicle review, as I thought it was criticizing Pitt for his accent, another reason why his performance was disliked. I'm not sure about the names, but I'll look for some info. on it. Again, I appreciate you taking your time to do this copy-edit. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking good in all ways, there, Gonzonoir. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, a fine contributor, indeed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Nicely done, Gonzonoir. I had a look at this a while back and it's funny the things you miss until someone else corrects them! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments. It's impossible for anyone to spot everything in a text, so please feel free to fix up anything that I missed too :) Gonzonoir (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Category

I recently added, [Category:American film producers]. He is a producer, as mentioned in the article. This category was never added to this page before, and I was wondering if this is okay. Tinton5 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fine. I'm surprised it was never added. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Page loading efficiency and style

I made a minor edit and it took forever for the article to load, both before and after my edit; about 20 seconds, and I'm on a fast connection. The resulting HTML said "<!-- Served by srv150 in 16.416 secs. -->" so apparently this is a server-side problem due to the page's overuse of {{cite web}} and friends. Any objection to switching to the recently-developed Vancouver system templates such as {{vcite web}}? They're significantly faster and generate significantly less HTML, which is better for people on slow connections. They don't use exactly the same style:

• Mock, Janet. "Brad Pitt Biography". People. p. 2. Retrieved May 16, 2008. (current style, 1086 bytes of HTML)
• Mock, Janet. Brad Pitt Biography [Retrieved May 16, 2008]; p. 2. (proposed style, 213 bytes of HTML)

but this is a relatively small point compared to the increase in performance. Eubulides (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. They don't appear that different at a glance and if the difference in size is that drastic, it seems this could eb a good idea. Do these allow for |publisher= and |publication date= fields? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny, it took all of 6 seconds to load and I'm on dial-up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was just me who had the slow problem, though not just in this article, and I too have a fast connection. If everyone agrees, I say yes to the proposed ref. style. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If the article is already cached, then the cache's copy is sent to you, so the only bottleneck is your network connection, and it takes (for Wildhartlivie) only 6 seconds. But if the article's not cached, which is a common case when editing, the server needs to regenerate the page, and then it takes much longer, regardless of whether you're on dialup. Eubulides (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not following, actually. The whole page right now is 68kB (69 825 byte). How do you end up at 1086 byte/reference? Nymf _hideliho! 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wiki markup (seen by editors) is only 98 kB (not 68 kB; don't know where that came from), but the HTML output, which is what is sent to article readers, is 366 kB for the current version. Switching to Vancouver style, as is done in this test version, shrinks the article's total HTML to 229 kB, a 37% savings. This savings is because in the current version, the References section consumes 212 kB, and Vancouver style would shrink that to 76 kB. Going back to that Janet Mock citation, its current HTML is:

<span class="citation web">Mock, Janet. <a href="http://www.people.com/people/brad_pitt/biography/0,,20004328_10,00.html" class="external text" rel="nofollow">"Brad Pitt Biography"</a>. <i><a href="/wiki/People_(magazine)" title="People (magazine)">People</a></i>. p. 2<span class="printonly">. <a href="http://www.people.com/people/brad_pitt/biography/0,,20004328_10,00.html" class="external free" rel="nofollow">http://www.people.com/people/brad_pitt/biography/0,,20004328_10,00.html</a></span><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved May 16, 2008</span>.</span><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&amp;rft.genre=bookitem&amp;rft.btitle=Brad+Pitt+Biography&amp;rft.atitle=%5B%5BPeople+%28magazine%29%7CPeople%5D%5D&amp;rft.aulast=Mock&amp;rft.aufirst=Janet&amp;rft.au=Mock%2C%26%2332%3BJanet&amp;rft.pages=p.+2&amp;rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.people.com%2Fpeople%2Fbrad_pitt%2Fbiography%2F0%2C%2C20004328_10%2C00.html&amp;rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Talk:Brad_Pitt"><span style="display: none;">&#160;</span></span>

which is 1086 bytes. The proposed HTML is:

<span class="citation">Mock, Janet. <a href="http://www.people.com/people/brad_pitt/biography/0,,20004328_10,00.html" class="external text" rel="nofollow">Brad Pitt Biography</a> [cited May 16, 2008]; p. 2.</span>

which is 213 bytes. Eubulides (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I tried your version though, and I still ended up with a loading time of 21 seconds when grabbing the uncached version of the page. I would say that it is out of our hands, and a change would do no difference. The bottle neck is most likely the database servers. Nymf _hideliho! 21:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you measured the right version? I consistently get much better times with the proposed version than with the current version. The exact speed depends on which server you talk to (some Wikipedia servers are faster than others) as well as network and browser overhead, but for page generation times the trend is quite clear. I just now fetched both versions 10 times, and as youcan see the current version:

Served by srv248 in 14.445 secs.
Served by srv212 in 14.277 secs.
Served by srv114 in 22.888 secs.
Served by srv132 in 17.082 secs.
Served by srv115 in 22.774 secs.
Served by srv159 in 20.264 secs.
Served by srv244 in 14.318 secs.
Served by srv199 in 14.457 secs.
Served by srv235 in 15.339 secs.
Served by srv243 in 14.393 secs.

is much slower than the proposed version:

Served by srv233 in 7.204 secs.
Served by srv244 in 7.620 secs.
Served by srv196 in 7.254 secs.
Served by srv249 in 7.216 secs.
Served by srv140 in 8.888 secs.
Served by srv103 in 12.060 secs.
Served by srv234 in 7.363 secs.
Served by srv117 in 11.836 secs.
Served by srv198 in 7.162 secs.

Served by srv242 in 7.510 secs.

Eubulides (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you are right, indeed. When I hit the purge button, it actually took me to the current page. I don't see any problems with switching then as it is an obvious performance increase. Perhaps we could even propose a change in the look? Nymf _hideliho! 22:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Something about the brackets throws me off a little bit as they seem as unnecessary clutter, but the page does load slow for me at times. However, it is the same for all large pages. If it will help, I see no issue making some type of adjustment. –turian^{обсудить} 20:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Vancouver-style templates typically result in major performance improvements only for pages that have a lot of citations and that use {{cite web}} or {{citation}} or etc. I'm not a big fan of the brackets either, but it's a minor price to pay for the performance improvements. Eubulides (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can change it over there one of these days. I think you should go ahead and do it. If somehow it proves to be ineffective, we should revert it. –turian^{обсудить} 22:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I gave it a shot. Please feel free to revert if there are problems. Eubulides (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Accessdate in citations

Most of the citations in this page have |accessdate= parameters, but they typically aren't needed. As {{vcite news}} says, "This parameter is intended to be used for websites that typically change pages after they are published; it is not normally needed for websites that do not typically change published pages, such as pages in archival journals." Sources like BBC News and People act more like archival journals in this respect, as they don't go back and edit their old articles, so citations to them don't need |accessdate=. The article needs |accessdate= only when the sources are likely to change, for example, Box Office Mojo. I propose removing |accessdate= for the stable sources. Eubulides (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fortune

Is there any info regarding the fortune of Brad Pitt? How much his assets are valued and so on?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Gwyneth mentioned in lead

Why not just say "following several long-term relationships" instead of "following a high-profile relationship with Gwyneth Paltrow" ? Because he did have several lengthy romances, the article says so, and he didn't date Paltrow until he was in his 30s.Closeminded8 (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the problem with mentioning Gwyneth Paltrow in the lead. Why are you so against it? His relationship with her was just as high-profile as his relationship with Jennifer Aniston. Of course...neither was as high-profile as his relationship with Angelina Jolie has been. I changed that part of the lead back to this, because it is just as relevant to mention her as the others (these three are his only high-profile romances). Pitt has not had several high-profile relationships before Paltrow (it started with her). Yes, he had a few "long-term" relationships before her, but not high-profile ones. Flyer22 (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Then again, we could alter the lead in some other way where we keep the mention of Paltrow. I also tried to change the lead-in of Paltrow as the high-profile part before, because the other two count as high-profile as well. Maybe we should start with a lead-in like, "With broader recognition, Pitt's romantic life became high-profile. After a relationship with actress Gwyneth Paltrow..." I would say we should start off with "Pitt has been involved in several high-profile relationships," and then lead in to Paltrow, but I don't consider three to be several. Flyer22 (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Starred or co-starred?

The lead says he starred in the Ocean films. Well, he was not the lead, that clearly was an ensemble piece and if anyone was the lead it was George Clooney. Pitt co-starred in those films.Closeminded8 (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, so I don't see this as a problem as such, though I welcome further comment from other editors. Also, the lead section of an actor doesn't need intricate details about a film- what's absolutely necessary is further down and the rest is in the film's article. There is a tendency to "over-write" this kind of article with unnecessary detail and a lot of hard work has gone in to get the article to where it is but that doesn't mean it can't adapt to suggestions, so I'm more than happy to discuss this here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I've restored your changes to the Paltro wording in the lead, though I'm happy to be reverted if anybody thinks she really should be mentioned in the lead. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

My changes

The user who reverted my edits said they admired my boldness (?) but that I should post here before making changes.

One change I made was following WildHartLive's advice from Liz Taylor's page and changing cutesy titles into actual timelines.

Another change I made was changing the word "starred" to "co-starred" regarded the Ocean films, which I already discussed on here and received approval.

I also changed the two of the side-profile photos to similar shots where you can see his face.Closeminded8 (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on the dates in the headers, but I think it would be useful (and is common practice) to use the years and the films, not one or the other. As to co-starred, the only discussion I'm aware of is that above, where I said that the two terms are not mutually exclusive. You should bear in mind that every tiniest detail of this article has been scrutinised in accordance with the featured article criteria and all the other relevant policies and guidelines. That doesn't mean that the article can't change, but that people should be careful when editing it. Now, I'll grant you co-starred, I'll ask the primary contributor (who knows the article better than I do) to look at the headings, because that's a good idea. However, I must disagree with this changing of the image. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would rather have the headers the way there are. User:Eubulides changed the headers so that it avoid generating invalid HTML, see here. Why not keep it that way? TBH, I'd rather keep "Early success" and "Critical success" than have "1987-1993" and "1994-1998". From what I understand, Clooney and Pitt were the leads in the Oceans' films. As with HJ, the image changes was not a good idea; the current images are fine where they stand. File:Brad-pitt09.jpg is a very unflattering image of Pitt. Also, what's up with all these threads in the talkpage? Why not just bring all of this stuff up in one? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What was the issue (or rev) that was of concern re invalid HTML? The current version of the page is generating invalid markup, as can be seen here (and here's a permanent link). This is due to the use of a section whose first character is a digit (teh '1' in "1999"). This is really a bug in how MediaWiki generates pages; XHTML does not allow digits on identifiers, yet MediaWiki fails to somehow convert sections beginning with a digit to identifiers that begin with a valid character (A–Z,a–z). You would not believe the hell this plays on the page generation of non-Latin projects such as ar:الصفحة_الرئيسية, for example; all the [unicode] projects. Was this the concern? Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll restore most of the edits except keep that side profile the way it is. It doesn't look good to have timelines for his later career but not for his early career. I agree with HJ there should be both timelines and descriptions in the headinsg. Or how about splitting it up by the decades ala Tom Cruise's wiki page? 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.Closeminded8 (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the obvious fact that nothing close to consensus in favor of Closeminded's desired changes was reached here, I've reverted based on two specific points:

• As noted in my edit summary, "starred" is correct and preferable to "co-starred", which is usually called for only when referring to multiple co-stars by name. The following are three good English sentences (the model for the lede is obviously the first one):

• Brad Pitt starred in Ocean's Eleven.
• George Clooney starred in Ocean's Eleven.
• Brad Pitt and George Clooney co-starred in Ocean's Eleven.

• No consensus has been reached on what to do with the headers. Given that fact, the main effect of the recent edit was to introduce bad style at multiple, prominent points in the article: date spans take en-dashes, not hyphens. But rather than simply restoring the change with that correction, consensus needs to be reached here (a) on whether the headers should be changed at all and (b) if so, how. Well-established status quo should prevail until then. In my view, Closeminded has raised a valid point about consistency, or lack thereof, in the approach to the headers, but if opinion is leaning toward including a few words and a date span in each of the four Career subheds, it's best to work that out and then make the change.

I have no opinion on which of the two photos, established or proposed, should accompany the Sexiest Man Alive caption: they are both mediocre in their different ways. I think Closeminded's choice of image from the Palm Springs Film Festival for the In the media section is superior to the current one.—DCGeist (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I'd like to reiterate that my advice was it is bad form to make such arbitrary changes to an article that just passed Featured article three weeks ago. At no time did I advocate imposing one's POV on an article with that status, my advice was to bring anything to the talk page, and the intent was that discussion actually occur before a POV was reintroduced. As for the images, File:Pitt06.png is of such poor quality, focus wise, that it may as well be some crayon scribbles. It's hard for me to accept that anyone finds it superior. Any major changes such as these require discussion and consensus before implementation. My other advice was that it's not a good idea to simply impose POV onto high profile articles like this one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd also refer you to WP:HYPHENS#Dates. Changing out en dashes for hyphens isn't acceptable and the current discussion about changing section titles has not concluded. Please stop edit warring to impose your personal vision. And absolutely STOP removing alt text from images. It's required. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So why are the first two sections labeled "Early work" and "Critical success" and the second two are timelines? On Angelina Jolie's page, the hyphen (-) is used to break up the years in the headers, and that is a "good" article. There should be timelines for the first two sections. Why not just make one for the 1980s, 90s, 00s etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Closeminded8 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that you are barging in and edit warring to impose your POV. That's never acceptable and rather than attempt to garner consensus, you're making it up as you go, including imposing your viewpoint rather than checking guidelines and policies as I pointed out above. And you're removing things that are necessary. As I noted on your talk page, you're going about, editing half-cocked. Please stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WHL, I think that's a little unfair to Closeminded. Closeminded, I know you don't realise it, but every tiny detail of this article is there because it needs too be and because it's been agreed upon. Trust me, I spent a month copyediting this and ensuring compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Also, while it's not your intention, in changing things to how you like them, you're disrupting other things, like alt text and dashes, which are essential for the featured status of this article. You make some good suggestions, and I actually agree with you on the date ranges in the headers, but you need to raise those suggestions here and get consensus first, which is why you've now been reverted by three different editors.

Jack, it was my understanding that the invalid HTML was created by having date ranges in the headers separated by – in the wikitext. Does that answer your question? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason there's "1999-2003" and "After 2003" is because I can't come up with good headers. There, I said it. If anybody can suggest two good headers, please it's welcome. Before, these were the headers ---> "Moderate success", "1994-2000: Mainstream success and acclaim" and "2000s: Ascension to the A-list", but someone believed they weren't "encyclopedic" headers. Like I said above, I'd rather have "Early work" and "Critical success" than the timeline, has more of a good explanation into his early work and "gaining" success. Also, it makes sense to have them. IDK about everyone else, but I still stand with the original images in the article. File:Brad Pitt palm film festival.jpg doesn't suggest he is being interviewed by the media. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

While you're here, Blue, what do you think to File:Angelina Jolie Brad Pitt Cannes.jpg? I personally think it's better quality than File:AngelinaJolieBradPittAAFeb09.jpg, which is used in "personal life". Perhaps we could work in somewhere as well as or instead of the other? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a fine image, though, I've been told the most recent image should be the one in the article. TBH, we don't need so many images of the two. One is just fine. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it might sound harsh, but this is the sort of thing that editor has been doing over far too many featured and good articles and each and every time it's happened, something has been said. Meanwhile, he continues to revert nearly to the point of 3RR violation to push his point of view. If I seem harsh about it, that's why. And for instance how many times has the alt text and such had to be returned? I don't know how many different times some of this needs to be said. The same issue keeps coming up. As for the questions regarding the two images, File:AngelinaJolieBradPittAAFeb09.jpg appears to be blurry and not well focused and File:Angelina Jolie Brad Pitt Cannes.jpg seems to be a quality image. I think that when the images are both this recent, the better quality photo should be used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, then let's go with the Cannes image. I agree, this disruption needs to stop, it's not helpful whatsoever. Yeah, several times, but the user doesn't listen. Someway or another the user needs to get this message clear. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I left the alt text the same because of the similarities between the two images, but it might need a slight tweak. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Would this image of Pitt and Jolie be good in the article? Or does everybody feel that the Cannes image is the one to go with. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, erm, that is sort of an odd image, isn't it? He's giving her a funky look and her expression is sort of off. Personally, of all the images I've seen of them together, I find File:Jolie-pitt2.png pretty good. It's them, not just together, but as a couple, and it's a classy sort of pose. FWIW. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was just asking; I wanted to see what everybody else thought of the image, don't shoot the messenger. I guess that one is off the table. True, that's a good image, but the Cannes one has the two all lovey-dovey. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Invalid HTML

That would be this edit. That does fix a generation of invalid served pages issue, but had nothing to do with &ndash; (or hyphen) appearing in dates; it's about the section name beginning with a digit, not a letter. By prepending words, the issue was fixed. I see that the issue returned. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies Jack, but I thought it better to start a new thread than continue a conversation in the middle of the old one. Thanks for clearing up the issue, I hadn't realise that was the issue (I was the one who changed the headers) but as I told you on WT:ACTOR my skills with markup are crap :)! I've put the "from" back in now, so do I take it that solves the problem?

On another note, what is the problem? I tried going to that section directly and it worked fine for me- is it a browser-specific problem? Thanks for your help, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit did fix the current version; this link will check the page for you. This is about the rules of proper xhtml and has nothing to do with any browser. Browsers do attempt to do their best, even when handed improper code, so while things may seem to pretty much behave, that's just your browser working overtime. Some browsers may not cope so well. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, and thanks for clearing that up for me! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycles

I can't add anything yet (presumably because I'm a pretty new Wikipedia contributor), but I think it's worth mentioning in the Personal Life section that Brad is an avid motorcyclist and has a collection of custom bikes. Cozmo1138 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that's encyclopedic information to add. I may be mistaken, but let's see what others have to say in regards to this. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a notable thing to include. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with including it. It's not strictly necessary, but if it can be reliably sourced, it might be worth a sentence in the PL section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Scientology addition

I have major issues with the inclusion of this content today. It gives far too much undue weight to something that is sourced only with citations that are repeated on Perez Hilton's web page, and basically implies that Pitt was highly interested in the church. One of the two classes he took was with Juliette Lewis, which doesn't mean it was something that interested him personally. I don't think this is much more than speculation and gossip and really doesn't warrant coverage in this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Perez Hilton also cited the reliable sources used is irrelevant to either the content of this page or the quality of the sources (actually it improves the reputation of Perez Hilton because it shows he follows Wikipeida's reliable source guidelines within his report...Kutos Perez, you are more reliable than some wikipedia editors I know). I am also really wondering how one line stating when Brad dated a prominent Scientologist he decided to take two classes and quit "basically implies that Pitt was highly interested in the church". Um...no. it basically implies that Brad took two courses and decided he didn't like the church. The only implication is possibly that he was highly interested in Lewis not the church of Scientology. this also isn't an Undue weight issue, the fact that Scientology has been whitewashed from this page...after (what I count as at least 6 reliable sources) it has been reported that the church has been actively recruiting Brad but he is not interested...I think that this one line doesn't violate the undue weight and covers that Scientology has been trying to recruit him, he tried, and he didn't like it.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

P.s. just checked Perez Hilton and found out he cited a self published source, not the two sources you claimed he used. I Strike out my kuto's and suggest you do better research.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

so exactly how is The Globe and Mail "Canada's largest-circulation national newspaper and second-largest daily newspaper after the Toronto Star and is widely described as Canada's newspaper of record in the English language. (as cited in encyclopedia britanica and quoted from wikipedia)" "dubious sourcing"?Coffeepusher (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I completely agree with WHL. This is not something we want in a biography of a living person. It's not a notable part of his life and it puts far too much weight on it. This is equivalent to saying he experimented with gay sex. It has no place in this article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you should do better research. I did not claim the sources were "dubious", although one cannot access either source to verify it. I did not say that Perez Hilton did anything other than repeat what he found elsewhere. There is no language in your addition that supports that the Church of Scientology has been trying to recruit him, it may have 15 or more years ago, but nothing supports it now. It is undue weight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

no, you didn't say it was dubious, HJMitchell did (check the last edit on the main page). "Although one cannot access either source to verify it"...both sources say exactly what I said, and you have just further demonstrated that you really need to learn to do better research: keaword "Local Library"...same place I found them, ( check the last line of this section out it really speaks to your problem) they have these things called computer databases, its like an internet search engine except that the county taxes paid for access to EVEN MORE STUFF and it's in this building with lots of books and THEY ACTUALLY LET YOU TAKE THEM HOME!!!! I know, AMAZING!.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

oh, and "something that is sourced only with citations that are repeated on Perez Hilton's web page" means you actually did say that the citations were on Perez Hilton's web page... they aren't.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there some valid reason you are being contentious here, because I see an overwhelming need in you to want to be right. I do not appreciate that you fell all over yourself to apologize to HJ Mitchell but you are speaking to me in a way that is demeaning. Got news for you dude, I have a vision disability that prevents me from driving the 9 miles to the nearest library and your tone is not appreciated. Please dial back your contentiousness and try learning a little bit of congeniality. Try a bit of assuming good faith and don't feel compelled to score points off other editors. It doesn't endear you to anyone. That Perez Hilton sources it to a book doesn't say he used the same citations you did. However, it's clear that the newspaper articles had to rely on the same book, since it's nearly verbatim. I don't appreciate your weak attempt to demean me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) HJ Mitchell apologized when he attacked me and demonstrated he made a mistake. You started out by attacking my sources (the Perez Hilton comment is what is called an Enthymeme which is an underhanded way of manipulating the argument according to Aristotle, Implying that was where I got the sources and giving it the rhetorical characterization that my edit was a tabloid...when in fact it was not at all, it was well researched and WP:RS). But you insist on trying to backpedal rather than...well admit that you thought I was a drive by editor who just read the Perez Hilton page rather than an editor who spent the entire morning digging up sources for another article and happened upon this information in the process. Your further attack against the validity of my edit "Although one cannot access either source to verify it"...REALLY?? That was low, uncalled for, had about as much congeniality as a wedgie, and now you are the one calling foul??? so sue me for pointing out exactly how ANYBODY WITH A COMPUTER (they have remote access for those of you who can't make it to the physical location :P )can find those resources. Oh, and check your research before you type...the Perez Hilton source is a self published 2010 book, one of the articles is 1993 and a WP:RS...How exactly did the article that is quoting the book predate the book itself? I think your calls for congeniality can be caricatured as Chickens coming home to roost. I can be civil, but not when I find someone attacking my sources, engaging in rhetorical tricks, or attacking my integrityCoffeepusher (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you are contentious and rude. I doubt you can be civil. Please stop your demeaning attacks. And stop trying to second guess what anyone thought. You are sadly short on ESP regarding that. And I have a minor in Philosophy, don't lecture me on the new word of the day you've dug up. However, you are behaving like a drive-by editor who can't let it go. Your content was removed, why are you struggling so pathetically to try and score points? It doesn't make the content more notable for inclusion here and it doesn't give you any insight into what is available here to access. You're the only one playing the game here, and you aren't winning. On April 30, Perez Hilton cited a book, the Daily Star (which really needed more information than the disambiguation page you linked to, was published April 25. That doesn't predate anything. You are increasingly incivil and tiresome and your contentiousness is becoming boring. The content isn't staying in the article, now go somewhere else and stop attacking me, try being a good boy for a change, something you are not doing so here. *Yawn*. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(first part deleted as it will only contribute to the problem...but no, I learned about an Enthymeme about 4 years ago and just made some comment critical to your education to point this out...Oh and you are correct that one source is 2010, the other is 1993 and since they are both WP:RS what Perez said really really doesn't matter. edit continued as is) Now your claim to weight does need some consideration especially since the credibility of the edit has been verified. I have already stated that I believe one sentence does not offer undue weight but the other two editors here disagree, and I have stated my reasons. you will also note that I stated I would comply with consensus, I didn't expect to be called a lier in the process. I think we both started this ball rolling (you with calling my edit a tabloid edit, me with my "do research" comment) but in the end I feel like the accusations leveled against me were more out of line since they attacked my credibility and integrity as an editor. I could have stopped this ball, and I didn't...Who knows why, maybe calling me a lier through a computer really gets on my nerves, maybe I think rhetoric is unethical and needs to be stopped, who knows. the point is we both contributed to this thing, you should probably stop backing up the Perez Hilton comment, as it has really really snowballed on you and I will delete the comment I just made (but didn't send) which will only escalate this further.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A "book" claims that Pitt was a "prime target" for Scientology recruiters before he began his relationship with Jolie. That's unreliable. How many book have been published with dubious information? Adding this would be just pointless. If Pitt himself admits to this, then yes that's reliable. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)