Jump to content

Talk:Chris Pratt/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pet Controversy

The paragraph I wrote about his pet controversy was removed. It was not vandalism. The incident was reported on by multiple sources and should be restored. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC))

Star Wars parody video

Chris Pratt is in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwNnrG0kAzo which is labeled as "Star Wars Kinect Parody". Anyone know if this is an official commercial, or is it some unofficial parody video?CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know but it was hilarious, thanks for sharing croc!  daintalk   01:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Birth place

The Minnesota Birth Index says he was born in St. Louis, Minn. TV Guide and other sources giving Virgin, Minn. Both are reliable sources so it's POV to pick one over the other. To me, the state Birth Index is pretty compelling, and my guess is he was born in a hospital in St. Louis, Minn., and raised in Virginia, Minn. Happens all the time, being born one place and raised another. See Alec Baldwin and others. But I don't know that for sure, so unless incontrovertible evidence comes up, we need to give "sources differ." --Tenebrae (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, discrepancy solved: Minnesota Birth Index lists the county. And Virginia, Minn., is indeed in St. Louis County, Minnesota. I'll adjust the article. --Tenebrae (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chris Pratt. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Citation

Is there a source for the quote where Chris Pratt said that he didn’t "want another Captain Kirk or Avatar moment"? Also there is plenty of info out about him being a male stripper before an actor this could use a citation as well. -Mwilson4080 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Graduation

https://www.purplegoldclub.com/chris-pratt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjhonson (talk • contribs) 21:30, May 22, 2017 (UTC)

So? We already have a reference for this, and ESPN is better than an alumni club. Meters (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2017

I just wanna request to change the Chris Pratt age on his wikipedia page from 37 to 38, because today is his birthday. If it updates autommatically, that's ok. Thank you very much. Just a BIG fan of Chris Pratt.

D Kiryoth (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it'll update automatically. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Also his father was Daniel Cullen Pratt. Katsu97 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy?

This was a story by deadline.com. There were no sources quoted and Marvel Studios has no clue what anyone is talking about in him being cast as Starlord, you should check your sources' sources...just a common sense thing. Just because a website says something doesn't mean it is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmyfitz161 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it isn't either, QED. Hindsight is 20/20 right? 2601:283:4301:3ED0:D466:F74A:D790:7A00 (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Are they still unsure? Katsu97 (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2018

please add under PERSONAL LIFE:

Chris Pratt is an avid Big Game Hunter who has stated "hunting is in my blood".

https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/hunting/2012/02/interview-chris-pratt-talks-about-hunting-tanning-and-squirrels Jimmyofvegas (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The given source is a publication which derives its income from the hunter-enthusiast community. For the claim to be made in the article, better and varied sources ought to be given. Spintendo      06:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2018

Notes Shotarotaro (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done It is unclear what changes you wish to have made. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 05:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

MTV Generation Award (2018)

Chris Pratt received the Generation Award at the 2018 MTV Movie Awards RJ0088 (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2018

74.140.151.67 (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Add "He's one of the highest paid actors."

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 01:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2018

74.140.151.67 (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"He's one of the Film and TV stars only next to Mike Myers, Seth Green, Wil Wheaton, Ashton Kutcher, Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Kevin Bacon, Tom Cruise, Neve Campbell and Judge Judy."

Not done: It is unclear what you are requesting. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 01:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn’t his career have started in 1998?

The article mentions that he got his first offer that year? Should we replace 2000 with 1998? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.211.251 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Chris Pratt and Anna Faris photo

Does the photo of Chris Pratt and Anna Faris at the 2011 Toronto International Film Festival need to be on this page? They are no longer married. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not totally sure how it benefits the article anymore either.100cellsman (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

"Partner" parameter

In the Template:Infobox_person#Parameters, the Partner description says: '"partner" here means unmarried life partners' – with a link to domestic partnership (a.k.a. cohabitation). The parameter is an alternative for "spouse", when the couple is unmarried and living together (and plan to for the rest of their lives), so not for "engaged" couples. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Humbling

There is a reference to "humbling auditions" but the reference does not include a link. I found the article about Pratt on the Entertainment Weekly website, please update the reference to include the URL. -- 109.77.235.192 (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Age calculator in the infobox seems to be off

Currently it says June 21, 1979 (age 39), should be 40.72.89.170.85 (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2019

Height: 6'2" (188cm) DOUBLE WHOPPER 375 (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Unsourced, and no explanation of significance Begoon 12:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2019

Some of the information is gramatically incorrect, please let me fix them and i will change nothing else for i am an astrophycist who respects others work. AskMeAnything.19 (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; please make a precise request. And furthermore, how can information be grammatically incorrect? You also misspelled grammatically, failed to capitalize I (twice), and left the apostrophe off others'. This doesn't instill me with much confidence about what you're wanting to do. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct misinformation

The section titles "Early Life" contains an error. The sentence that is incorrect/misleading is the following:

..."youngest child of Kathleen Louise (née Indahl), who worked at a Safeway supermarket..."

There were no Safeway stores ANYWHERE in Minnesota (EVER) and my guess is that she may have worked at one AFTER they moved to the state of Washington, where Safeway does exist. However, the statement implies that Pratt's mother worked at a Safeway Store in Minnesota when Chris Pratt was born... Lucky 7vens (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Lucky 7vens

Chris pratt just had a baby daughter!!

her name is Lyla Maria Schwarzenegger Pratt born today i think he just posted on his facebook about it 30 ish mins ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:1180:5200:970:133D:237A:A21A (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2020

change children to 2 45.49.122.205 (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Already done. RudolfRed (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cameo appearance

I believe he had a brief cameo as a singing telegram in P.S. I Love You, but he doesn't appear on the cast list so it seems uncredited. Can anyone confirm? danno_uk 17:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC) this is very false--Marvelfan111 (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

VOX Quotes Are Reliably Sourced And Inclusion Is Justified

wiki user Morbidthoughts removed this content claiming "No evidence this WP:RSOPINION quote is WP:DUE". I believe Morbidthoughts' excision of this important quote of Vox is not the right way to think about this content, because I am not presenting an opinion of my own, or of VOX. VOX is correctly explaining the moral deficit Pratt exhibits that motivated Elliot Page to call Chris Pratt into account in the first place. It is not an "opinion" of VOX that Chris Pratt has not publicly confronted his church about their active bigotry toward LGBTQ+ people. It is not an "opinion" of VOX that this is the issue Elliot Page took with Chris Pratt, VOX has correctly summarized the moral issue Page addressed in her first tweet on the matter at hand, and there are no contrary "opinions" as to whether or not VOX's description of Page's concern is wrong. It is not "UNDUE" emphasis, for there is no publicly available information that would cast doubt upon Page's contention that Pratt passively accepts the homophobia of the Zoe branch of the Hillsong affiliated church's anti-homosexual policies, despite the fact that Pratt has ample wealth & power to simply select another church to attend & support or start a non-bigoted church of his own. Until someone provides evidence of a counter-claim that VOX's description of the conflict somehow does not fully describe the true state of the social media interactions between these famous actors on this moral issue, then there is no violation of WP:RSOPINION or WP:DUE. If Morbidthoughts can specify how this contnent violates those policies, we can make adjustments. But otherwise, this portion of content should remain in the article.

VOX said:

Meanwhile, the reason this situation began in the first place is that Pratt does not appear to care about the way his church pastor talks about LGBTQ people, meaning that he is lending the enormous weight of his support to an organization that's been accused of harming a vulnerable community.

The content added here [1] is way too much. Also, the heading Publicly Indifferent To Homophobic Policies Of His Church sucks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


You make 2 claims: 1. "The content added here…is way too much." That's an opinion we can discuss. I have performed a great deal of work to ensure that this section truly informs the entire wikipedia as to what exactly the issue is and is not, and who said what, and when they said it. This section is tiny, because the needed sources to explain what happened and why are still on the internet in the form of a handful of people who sent their messages in the form of tweets and instagram posts, which are naturally "small pieces of content" mediums. The bare minimum of blockquotations from VOX and The Mercury News are used. Any less would leave a reader new to the subject at least partly uninformed. If you have a SPECIFIC idea for phrasing the words more concisely or in more active voice, we can discuss that. But reverting my contributions out of existence clearly denies readers a true understanding of what happened and the social implications a reader should conclude for themselves about the topic. By what standard do you propose that we objectively measure what "too much" is? It seems to me that if you want to change everything all at once now, that you should propose the alteration you want and start a consensus for it here on the talk page. I'm pretty certain I can build a very large consensus for inclusion very quickly. Because this section of the article involves several famous, rich actors displaying either noble or villainous behavior, each thing they did NEEDS to be sourced correctly from their original messages, both so that wikipedia readers can prove the facts for themselves, and to protect the wikipedia itself from any charges of libel or bias. Providing links to what the people behaving badly said at the time ensures that they can not at some future time make a false claim that they behaved differently.

2. "Also, the heading Publicly Indifferent To Homophobic Policies Of His Church sucks." WHY do you claim it "sucks"? What is your alternative proposal? The subject of this section of the Pratt article is NOT "what's the name of the church he goes to?", so "Zoe Church" is not an acceptable title. The subject is Chris Pratt's moral failure to defend others from harm, *especially* when he has a tremendous amount of wealth, fame & power to do so, and the task is so simple and barely requires any effort from him to fix, and months of time have passed since then in which he's had ample opportunity to do it. Other titles that might misdirect the wikipedia reader away from truly understanding the moral argument Elliot Page made against Chris Pratt's character would be unacceptable. This section does contain negative information about Mr. Pratt (and several other people), but the presentation of the facts is as neutral as it can be. If you have a SPECIFIC suggestion as how the neutrality can be improved without hiding from the readers unflattering facts about Pratt ( or his "The View From Nowhere" defenders who failed to address Elliot Page's valid concerns about the church), we might institute them if consensus can be built here on the talk page.

I'm going to revert the article 1 last time back to the state in which I left this section complete. If you want SPECIFIC non-trivial changes, identify them on this talk page FIRST, no more blanket reversions without consensus, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, please. ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 12:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS. Should you restore the content again without consensus, I will be filing an enforcement request (as well as likely an edit warring report). FDW777 (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
After reading your lengthy posts here, you have spectacularly failed to understand the proportion issue. The section is far too long, if it even needs to exist at all (which is open to debate) it needs to be much shorter. See WP:WEIGHT, in particular WP:UNDUE. FDW777 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
FDW777, your instant threat upon arrival of "I will be filing an enforcement request" after making a complete reversion, with no prior participation here is a blatantly abusive mis-application of the consensus. I can not help but note that you just performed a total reversion WITHOUT building the consensus necessary to justify that here on the talk page FIRST, despite knowing full well that a discussion here is underway, which means you are hypocritically in violation of the consensus.
No one has yet made a single dispute against a single part of the content. Others have made meta-arguments pretending "it's too long" without explaining how that is so. Others have made meta-claims "Oh! You have violated policy ___", without providing a single example of the violation. Case in point: the ONUS for this section is so obvious it doesn't even need to be explained to an honest editor. This section, which covers the dispute Elliot Page raised about Chris Pratt's passive tolerance of homophobia at his church, and his [redacted] statements he & his defenders made about the matter, can have a tremendous effect upon whether or not fans will want the movies he makes, and whether other actors will tolerate working with him, and whether or not casting directors will select him, and whether or not the CEO of Disney will get sacked for allowing it to continue. Hundreds of millions of dollars could be moved to other movies, tens of thousands of persons who work on such big-budget flicks might need to move to other projects or see their incomes changed. More than 4M people "liked" Robert Downey Jr.'s "defense" of Pratt, even though Downey [redact] did not address the core moral claim Page raised. Since the public interest in this specific topic about Mister Pratt is sky high, and the effect upon the economics of tens of thousands of film industry workers can make or break fortunes for many years, the ONUS is completely proved.
You have made a sweepingly over-broad claim against this entire subsection of the article: "you have spectacularly failed to understand the proportion issue. The section is far too long". If you can cite SPECIFIC examples of something I "don't understand", please specify it now, so that I might understand and we can improve the content together. If there is something SPECIFIC about the content you can describe that shows how "far too long" can be made shorter without simultaneously hiding information readers will need to have, I'd love for you to type that out here in the talk page so we can hammer out a superior article together. But if you can't cite such examples soon, a reversion of your deletion would be appropriate, and not an edit war on my part, because so far, you haven't supplied a single example of how one of your generic complaints actually applies to something in this subtopic. I still remain utterly open to collaboration with any honest editor who has a constructive, specific suggestion to make. Maybe that'll turn out to be you? ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 14:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the history of the aricle I see one person, and one person alone, is reponsible for the section attacking a living person. You. If you choose to continue down that path despite being warned of discretionary sanctions and the inevitable outcome of you proceeding down that path, the blame will be solely attributable to you. FDW777 (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Also I guess you never read WP:ONUS despite me mentioning it very clearly at the start of my reply. I suggest reading it now. FDW777 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
User Ace Frahm has been educated, edit reverts has included various WP's, it has gone on other talk pages with same lengthy posts (see here) and still fails to abide by Wikipedia policies. This disruptive editing must stop on its part. --P37307 (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
FDW777, I have only just completed my addition to this entry today, when others see it, I'm certain they will find value in its inclusion. Your needlessly personal talk here directed at me indicates that you are not actually interest in good-faith chat over what improves the article for users of the wiki. You seem to wish to establish vitriol at me personally instead. I have already established the need for the inclusion of this section in the article, I just got done proving ONUS, yet you've posted a link to that policy yet again without explaining how it applies after ONUS was already met; Pratt's moral behavior can directly affect thousands of people, and a fellow MCU actor has aleady found his behavior wanting. So FDW777 can't just type links to various wikipedia policies on the talk page and hope that others will go find a reason why something on those pages grants FDW777 veto power over any other wiki editor's work. The burden is upon FDW777 to point out precisely how some aspect of those policies applies to these conditions. FDW777 has not produced a valid critique yet. Wikipedia does not rule by majority opinion or votes, consensus gets built for the worthwhile positions. I've built a worthwhile contribution about a historic event surrounding the person this article is about to contribute to the wikipedia. So far, FDW777 position lacks specific details that could support his claims, and he's been personally abusive to me as well, despite my friendliness, so I'd like any other editors who are about join this consensus building effort to take all of that into consideration as you form an opinion. ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 16:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
P37307, If you can specify any valid instance of the supposed WP violations you generally claim I've made, I will fix them. That is exactly the opposite of what a "disruptive" editor would do, is it not? ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 16:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
From WP:ONUS, which you apparently still haven't read. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. That would be you. FDW777 (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, posting a big long rant about how material should be included then proclaiming that you've achieved consensus isn't how the process works. FDW777 (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
BLP violations redacted, see WP:BLPTALK. FDW777 (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

"Elliott Page"?

Is Elliott Page a significant enough person that his or her tweets matter to anyone at all? --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:59A5:255D:EFE7:DF65 (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The relevant persons involved in the current conflict over highlighting or willfully ignoring Chris Pratt's moral deficit have the common feature that they are associated in the past or present with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Most of them have portrayed superheroes on-screen, and THAT INCLUDES PAGE. Superheroes aren't merely expected to wield powers that break the physical laws of the universe, they're expected to wield moral virtues better than average humans do. Elliott is actually living up to that role in REAL LIFE, while Chris Pratt does not. (Personal attack removed) If Page, who is heroic, does not meet the standard of notoriety, then Pratt, who is morally failing, certainly does not meet the standard, no matter what absolute number of followers each has, for Page's morality is extremely fine, rarer, more valuable that Pratt's commonplace retrograde morals. I will not let my opinions discolor the neutrality of what I insert into the wiki articles. Will you let yours? ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 10:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, NO ONE needs to meet any notability requirement to provide a pointed, correct critique of another person's bad morals on Wikipedia. If that were true, only wealthy, famous or powerful people would be allowed public speech rights. Peons would permanently have their voices squelched. And Page's criticism drew not just the attention but the interactions of millions of people. That investment of human lifetime proves his worth, even if you dislike him.. ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 10:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, as of today, Elliot Page has 114.67% times as many references on their wikipedia article as pratt does, so if Elliot does not count as mattering because anonymous commenter up there questions it, then pratt surely does not deserve to have an article. But it's not like the question was authentic to start with, it was petty. ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 08:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ace Frahm:, that is factually untrue per wp:DUE. Further, declarations of "moral deficit" would stray very close, if not directly into the territory of wp:OR, which is forbidden by policy. 69.172.145.94 (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, anonymous poster, You've tossed out wp:DUE without specifically explaining how the content is in conflict with the policy. Your argument is MISSING. In wp:DUE, it says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". The moral deficit IS explicitly spelled out by the referenced reliable sources, the content IS THE significant viewpoint, for it is the ONLY viewpoint any reliable sources take, and IS published by reliable sources that wikipedia accepts. According to wp:DUE, the content MUST be included for it's omission violates the neutrality principle that the wp:DUE policy you've tossed into the air without explianaiton demands. So wp:DUE demands inclusion, not deletion.
Similarly, anonymous poster, you've tossed up wp:OR as a supposed reason, but you haven't explained how it would apply: your argument that would link the policy to the content is MISSING. ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 01:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Positive Consensus For Inclusion Of Recent Section On Passive Indifference

It has been many days since the first inclusion of the section on pratt's passive indifference to his church's official homophobia. ONUS was proved days ago.

1. No one actually made an argument that the ONUS for inclusion was not proved. Some opponents exclaimed "ONUS ONUS ONUS", noting that the ONUS policy exists, which it does. But none of them have provided any reasoning as for why the ONUS policy was not satisfied. The ONUS was obvious from the start, and many additional good arguments that ONUS was satisfied have been made since.
2. Consensus for inclusion has been met, for I have made many valid arguments for the importance of inclusion of the section, yet no one has made an argument against inclusion. They have simply made claims that those who take my position don't possess the consensus. Yet I note: No other positions even exist. No one has constructed a consensus against inclusion, or for a modification. All that others have done is perform unjustified reversions, failing to meet their obligations under 3RR and consensus building.

So, in a few more days, if no one bothers to build an argument around a different consensus, I will include the section based upon the merit of my existing arguments that has lead to the current state of affairs: The only existing public position any group of wiki-editors has taken: Consensus for the inclusion. I'd like to remind the 3RR naked reverters, that consensus is built upon the best available position, wikipedia is not a democracy. That is, it does not matter if I am outnumbered. If my position is the soundest one, I insist the rest of you accept it no matter how unpleasant you might feel that one of your favorite actor's character flaws becomes publicly visible here. The information is super-notable, for it triggered the good & bad activities of millions of people, and EVEN if the chris pratt article did not exist, then an article on the American media incident that revealed that numerous top-earning hollywood actors exhibit passive indifference to the high-profile suffering of others at a church right there in L.A., where most movies come from, that influence the rest of our culture at this period of time would be justified all by itself. So I'm going to insist that any meta-policy arguments that don't explain how the policy raised as an objection actually relates specifically to the section for inclusion, are flat arguments that carry no weight for building a different consensus position. That's fair, isn't it? ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 09:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

ONUS was proved days ago, you've already been told that isn't how WP:ONUS works. Your version has been rejected by multiple editors, I suggest you disengage from this article voluntarily before you lose any choice in the matter. FDW777 (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
If you insert something like [2] again, I will again revert you per WP:PROPORTION. However, you could attempt to make a suggestion here on the talkpage, source and wording, and see if that accomplishes anything. Start small, perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, I suggest you improve your citations/referencing, there's good tools for that, see WP:TUTORIAL and WP:REFBEGIN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Also also, never (well, hardly ever) try to use tweets as sources directly in a BLP, see WP:BLPSPS. If WaPo writes about a tweet, we can too. Sometimes we won't, even if Wapo does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • No one actually made an argument that the ONUS for inclusion was not proved. Some opponents exclaimed "ONUS ONUS ONUS", noting that the ONUS policy exists, which it does. But none of them have provided any reasoning as for why the ONUS policy was not satisfied. Sure we have. The policy was not satisfied because you have not managed to gain concensus for your edits. In other words, you have been able to convince anyone why your edits should remain.
  • They have simply made claims that those who take my position don't possess the consensus. Yet I note: No other positions even exist. No one has constructed a consensus against inclusion, or for a modification. All that others have done is perform unjustified reversions, failing to meet their obligations under 3RR and consensus building. Sure other positions exist. In fact, this is the current version of the Zoe Church that has consensus.
  • So I'm going to insist that any meta-policy arguments that don't explain how the policy raised as an objection actually relates specifically to the section for inclusion, are flat arguments that carry no weight for building a different consensus position. That's fair, isn't it? Okay, let me explain to you in plain English, without referring to any WP policies or guidelines, why your edits were rejected. Your edits were rejected because they were extremely biased. Writing things like Fans Distressed At Homophobic Policies Of His Church or ..all of whom failed to address the underlying issue with Zoe church's homophobic policies or Pratt's moral responsibility to use his fame and fortune to fight those policies are a reflection of your personal opinions. On the other hand, all content on WP should be devoid of partisan opinions, and instead, rely on neutral facts. We don't pick sides in a dispute. If you need additional assistance, please visit the WP:HELPDESK or WP:TEAHOUSE. I would also suggest you read WP:AXE. Thank you! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic, but what is the difference between Passive Indifference and indifference? Is Passive Indifference some sort of political term? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's some background information & links to help illuminate the term:
"passive": pratt has ample power to act, has been called upon by Page to act appropriately, but has not done so; this definitively characterizes his behavior as passive.
"indifferent": pratt does not care about the reason he's been called to act, or he cares about something else even more; this characterizes his behavior as indifferent.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/bystanders
https://wikidiff.com/indifferent/passive
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2005-09-16-0509160138-story.html
Now, former president obama has an ocean of problems of his own, but he wasn't wrong when he said "passive indifference is as bad as active malice."
Ian Kershaw, a historian specializing in Nazi Germany, said, “The road to Auschwitz was built by hate, but paved with indifference.”
You can contrast "passive indifference" with Geras's concept of "a universal duty to bring aid".
And in contrast, "passive indifference" is not "depraved indifference", in which someone actively creates the conditions that can obviously lead to the death & dismemberment of others, but they don't care whether or not anyone else gets hurt. One could argue that it is the "pastor" chad veach who exihibits depraved indifference, but this article is not about him. ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 14:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Question: Why is the "Zoe Church" section even there? Where is the encyclopaedic value? A celebrity posted a tweet with (from what I've read, which is admittedly only four or five artitcles resulting from a Google search of "Chris Pratt Zoe Church") unsubstantiated claims about Zoe Church and claimed Pratt was indifferent to homophobia. Pratt responded and denied the claims. Is that not where this story ends? If it was a case of Zoe Church or that funky looking pastor dude having a documented history of homphobia, and Pratt came to their defence, then that would be different. But I'm not seeing either of those. I'm also not seeing multiple RS criticising Pratt, rather, they're just reporting on Page's tweet and Pratt's response. Where's the actual controversy here? Again, where is the encyclopaedic value? Should we also include how animal lovers in the Twitterverse were outraged that he gave away his old, incontinent cat when his newborn baby arrived? Or how about Amy Berg's Twitter poll that established Pratt as "the worst Chris" out of a group of actors called Chris? What am I missing here? The fact that something has been covered in the media does not mean we must include it, especially when it smells like a big fat nothingburger with a side order of speculation.

Disclaimer: I have no interest in Chris Pratt outside of the MCU. I'm an atheist. I support the freedom to love and marry whoever one chooses. I just thought I'd get that out there to prevent any potential aspersions. – 2.O.Boxing 11:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why it is in here, either. I only came to his page to do some maintenance. A link, I think. Somewhere up in this saga someone kind of questioned the value of it being in the article. It doesn't need its own section, imo. It could be stripped down to a couple sentences in his personal life section, imo, if it is valuable enough. Interested parties could then read the citation articles if they want in-depth info. I might try to write up something and post it here in the talk for consensus unless a consensus question is brought up and reached to trash it all together P37307 (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Admin note: I happened across this article because I noticed that it had both PC protection and semi-protection; that makes no sense so I removed the PC protection. Then I saw this extended argument about Zoe Church. User:Ace Frahm, you need to stop trying to insert additional material about Zoe church, because it is clearly against consensus. It has been reverted multiple times. I see several problems: first, earlier you were edit warring. You inserted the material three times on July 24 and three times again on July 25. I’m glad to see that you stopped that; edit warring is blockable; but now I see you threatening to add your material again. Second, what you wish to insert is very non-neutral, as illustrated by section headings “Fans Distressed At Homophobic Policies Of His Church” and “Publicly Indifferent To Homophobic Policies Of His Church”. Third, you have not achieved consensus for your version in the discussions here at the talk page; quite the contrary. In the most recent discussions here, I see three people apparently supporting or defending the current, neutral paragraph (which basically says that someone claimed his church is homophobic and he denied it); one person saying the material should be trimmed to a mention in the personal life section; and one person questioning why there is anything at all about Zoe church in the article. I also see a suggestion that someone might propose an alternate version. At this point I see no one at all supporting your position. Get consensus here before adding anything more.

I will continue to monitor this article and hope that discussion will prove fruitful. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  • One more for trimming and merging into personal life section. Unlike what Ace writes above, Pratt is not actually a superhero, he's an actor, and should not be judged by the standards of being a superhero. In one role he played a superhero, but in his next he will likely play a politician, or a magician, or a saint, or a serial killer. He is not a leader of or a spokesman for his church. Unless there is evidence that Pratt holds a very prominent role in his church, the section about his church should be quite a minor one. If Ace wants to write an article about the church, they can do that, but that should not be this article. --GRuban (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • He was only topic banned for 24 hours. Maybe it got his attention, and that's why he posted here rather than resuming edit warring at the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021

The occupation comedian should be removed from his occupation section in the infobox and in the first sentence of the article. Because he isn’t known for doing comedy and being funny, plus his career section says nothing about him doing comedy throughout his career. Is there a chance someone could remove it? 97.47.66.112 (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove Zoe Church, replace in Personal Life

Should the Zoe Church section be removed and replaced with a simple blurb in the Personal Life section such as the following?

Proposal text:

In 2019, Pratt, after discussing how his faith, church, and pastor had helped him in his personal life, was challenged by actor Elliot Page to explain attending a church that was anti LGBTQ. Pratt replied the church wasn't because the church was open to everyone. Several actors defended Pratt.

I propose removing the Zoe Church section and putting it back to the Personal life section before it was changed in the latest controversy, recycling the best citations.

There are other elements of his faith in the Personal life section, so I believe it will fit better there. --P37307 (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey - Remove Zoe Church, replace in Personal Life

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is not a consensus for outright removal, therefore we default to the status quo. The content has already been moved to "Personal life" and been trimmed to address the possibility of WP:UNDUE. There are two significant sources cited, so the content does not appear to violate WP:BLP. As this biography continues to develop, the issue could be revisited. Jehochman Talk 21:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Of course, I proposed it so I support it.P37307 (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • First choice is to remove the material altogether. Even if the media covers them, Twitter spats will rarely be of encyclopedic value. If we must include anything about it at all, my second choice would be to do so minimally in the "Personal Life" section, as outlined here. An entire section about a Twitter quarrel is way beyond undue weight. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd name the church. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support placing back in personal life This definitely does not deserve its own section. I like the brevity of the proposed wording, but I would prefer it read something like the original text which had a bit more context: Pratt reportedly attends the Zoe Church in Los Angeles, which is affiliated with the Hillsong Church. After an interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, where Pratt stated he went on a 21-day fast at the urging of his pastor, actor Elliot Page accused Pratt of attending an anti-LGBTQ church. Pratt denied he attends an anti-LGBTQ church and stated his church "opens its doors to absolutely everyone." Several actors, including Mark Ruffalo, Zoe Saldana, and Robert Downey Jr., came to Pratt's defense. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove altogether: An actor making unsubstantiated claims on Twitter that were subsequently denied has no encyclopaedic value. By all means mention the church in the personal life section. If there's some widely reported controversy that the Church has been involved with, something besides "oh but Page posted this tweet" and something that isn't speculation, then by all means briefly mention that. But Page's unsubstantiated comments are irrelevant and unencyclopaedic. – 2.O.Boxing 22:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove, with a short mention in 'Personal life' being my second choice. This feels much like WP:RECENTISM, unlikely to pass the 10-year test. Even a few months later, coverage of Pratt doesn't seem to mention it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support or outright removal - Page did not name the church, and we do not know the basis of their arguments. According to the cited USA Today article, the affiliation between the two churches is that Zoe Church's founder, Chad Veach, had previously preached at Hillsong, where another preacher had expressed anti-LBGTQ views. If a wikipedia editor had tried to synthesize everything to conclude that Pratt attends an anti-LGBTQ church, it would be prohibited. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Support removal but have a brief mention in personal life. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It should be removed and be covered briefly in Personal life. Sea Ane (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove altogether or briefest mention in Private life. Basically Twitter trivia with no lasting coverage per Firefangledfeathers and others. Pincrete (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support and shorten further There is some undue weight for what is really just a few Tweets. ~ HAL333 20:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove altogether Seems like RECENTISM and UNDUE weight to focus on this. Fail 10Y test.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, per Dr.Swag Lord - Idealigic (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Concur with those above saying to just remove it completely. Aircorn (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose total removal: worth a mention, but needs to be kept in proportion. — Bilorv (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove altogether per Seraphimblade and Morbidthoughts. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion- Remove Zoe Church, replace in Personal Life

  • P37307, it is entirely inappropriate to have something like Please limit discussion to supporting, opposing, or proposing slight edits of the language of my proposed text. in your RfC proposal. This is a request for comments, not a request for votes, and editors may say whatever they like in response to that. I would ask that you strike that out before proceeding. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
SeraphimbladeMy bad, will remove --P37307 (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Closure

User:Jehochman, as a "no consensus" result, shouldn't this be removed per WP:NOCONSENSUS However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

“Often” but not this time.Jehochman Talk 05:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Can I ask why? I don't know the details of the debate, but the information is clearly contentious BilledMammal (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
There was a discussion. I analyzed the discussion. This is the result. The discussion was a request to trim the content and move it into another section. That was done. Some people wanted to remove the content entirely, but their votes were not as strong. I called it "no consensus to remove," but you could think of it as "consensus to keep." Jehochman Talk 05:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense; I had misinterpreted your close. Could I suggest avoiding words similar to "no consensus" in the future unless the result is "no consensus"? BilledMammal (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you misinterpreted. I may have been a little too nuanced. My goal was to leave the door open for a new discussion that focused on whether or not to remove the content. The instant discussion was about paring back the content. A new discussion with different framing might produce a consensus to remove. However, I recommend not rushing it. Maybe start by giving the article a thorough review to make sure any problem of WP:UNDUE isn't caused by other content being underdeveloped, rather than this content being overly prevalent. Identify the best sources and make sure all relevant facts from those sources have been included. Then, see how it looks. Jehochman Talk 12:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2022

He has a daughter, Lyla Born august 2020 2600:1700:3220:F860:DCB2:5B2B:48B6:B1A7 (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Favonian (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Pratt/Archive_1&oldid=1136978661"