Talk:Brat Pack/Archive 1

It wasn't the New Yorker, it was New York Magazine.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off?

How about Ferris Bueller's Day Off? Seems a Brat Pack movie to me... No. What Brat Pack actors were in it with serious roles? 140.146.230.222

I dunno. Charlie Sheen? (Emilio Estaves's brother)90.134.56.2 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Kiefer?

I was under the impression that Kiefer Sutherland was part of the Brat Pack. Bbatsell 00:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about Christian Slater?

Diane Lane

On Diane Lane article she's referred as "leading member of the brat pack group of actors". Maybe would be better if she is moved to actual members.

Melissa Gilbert

I reinserted Melissa Gilbert in the "auxilary members" as she dated Rob Lowe and was often accompanied by other brat packers to social events.

--58.170.67.183 08:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC) I disagree and don't think Melissa Gilbert should be listed here as a bratpacker by association. She is clearly not a bratpacker herself.

No, She wasn't a Brat Packer, that is why I placed her in the "auxiliary members" section. While she definitely wasn't a member of the core brat pack, she dated Lowe, hung out with the others and often appeared alongside them in tabloid papers. ExRat 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Lost Boys?

How is The Lost Boys a Brat Pack movie? The cast contains no members of the Brat Pack, and the only auxiliary member is Keifer Sutherland (whose only film connection to the Brat Pack is The Lost Boys). Joel Schumacher directed it, but, aside from The Lost Boys, his only Brat Pack credit is St Elmo's Fire.

And more importantly, The Lost Boys is a two Coreys movie.

John Cusack?

John Cusack has a minor role in 16 Candles, but that's about it. I've never seen him referred to as a member of the Brat Pack? john k 00:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition

It seems to me that the basic definition of a Brat Pack movie would be The Breakfast Club, St. Elmo's Fire, and any other movie which features at least two members of the main cast of one of those movies. The core Brat Pack would consist of the main actors from those two movies, with the probably exception of Mare Winningham. Perhaps a few movies featuring only one core Brat Packer (e.g. Weird Science) could count. This would fit the movies listed on the external link given, I will add. john k 01:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

They should only count if there is an outside source (article, essay, book) that discusses the films. The list as is is very crufty and it would be best served if the "requirements" come from a real source instead of Original Research. Radagast83 16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Andie MacDowell?

Why not?

Auxiliary members

I just removed Alyson Hannigan and Sean William Scott from this, because I have seen no evidence they have anything to do with the brat pack. Really, most of the names in that "auxiliary" list need either their inclusion justified, or else they need to be deleted. Someone's been pulling your leg. --124.189.8.183 17:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why have an "auxiliary members" list????

I think this list was built by one or more editors who want to include their favorite artists but had to find some way to add them. If you look at several of the members of this aux list, they were popular in the 1970s. So they should have no association with the Brat Pack. Also, if you look at the Rat Pack article, there is no auxiliary members list; the Rat Pack is just that - a pack of specific individuals. Association with any given member of the Brat Pack - whether it is through appearing in a movie a member, dating a member, etc. should be irrelevant. I think the auxiliary members list should be removed. Groink 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I waited long enough for comments. I went ahead and commented out the list. If no further comments are made in a few days, I'll remove the list completely. Groink 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 copyedit

I have made some major edits to this list based on the sources that I could find (essentially it's the Time and New York magazine articles). It probably needs to have more edited out. I think a good upgrade to this article would be a comparison chart similar to what has been created for the Frat Pack, which lists the eight people across the top and all the 80s movies down the side to demonstrate the level of collaboration among the group. HokieRNB 15:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion - if a movie contains at least two actors from the top row, or one actor plus at least two other peripheral brat-packers, then it should go in this chart. An actor should be included if they are in at least two movies that qualify for the chart:

I have moved the table into the article.HokieRNB 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

James Spader & Robert Downey, Jr.

I think these two actors could be considered for inclusion based on their appearances in "Less than Zero" and "Weird Science", both of which could possibly be considered Brat Pack flicks. They also both appeared in a couple of other of the listed Brat Pack films. Anybody agree? Ronstock 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly? Ronstock 20:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think per the wikipedia policy of verifiability, these two actors would have to be cited somewhere as being a part of the brat pack, which has really only been defined in terms of the two seminal movies "The Breakfast Club" and "Saint Elmo's Fire". If you can find another source that states otherwise, I say feel free to add them. HokieRNB 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How about this as another source? http://www.amazon.com/Collection-Breakfast-Sixteen-Candles-Science/dp/B000A3DGEE I think it clearly opens the door for including "Weird Science" as a "Brat Pack Movie", which I think would in turn may bolster the argument for including Downey (who was also in "Less than Zero", along with Spader, who I believe was also in "Pretty in Pink" with McCarthy, who in turn was also in "Less than Zero".)

I realize my logic may be getting a little fuzzy here, so I'll leave the floor open for discussion before making any changes to the article, for now.Ronstock 02:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, hello? You said less than 24 hours ago that you would leave the floor open for discussion, and then you made the changes anyway. I will undo your edits and wait for further discussion. HokieRNB 18:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just leave them up so people can see them and discuss them? It's easier to discuss something when you can see the evidence right there in front of you. I think I've made a pretty good case for inclusion.Ronstock 18:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Because (A) you also added James Spader, who was not in any of the three movies cited in the Amazon collection, and (B) you said "I'll leave the floor open for discussion before making any changes to the article", and I'm holding you to your word, and (C) the discussion page is the perfect place for people to see them and discuss them. Personally I think being packaged together is a pretty dubious source for inclusion, but since this is about consensus, the best thing to do is wait for other editors to weigh in. HokieRNB 18:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reckon we'll see one way or another. I don't really anticipate a lot of discussion on this topic, given that the Brat Pack is 20 years old--and that people don't generally like their nostalgia messed with. Funnily enough, I went to the library tonight and they had a copy of the DVD that I reference above. Synchronicity, I guess. Or my library just has crappy DVDs! :) Cheers. Ronstock 02:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Brat Pack consists of artists who played the main characters in the movies they're credited for; instead, Spader and Downey played supporting characters. Groink 02:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hack Pack

This is an unsourced reference by Artie Lange of "The Killers of Comedy Tour", and not the name of another article. It should not be added in the "See also" section until it is properly cited. HokieRNB 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated in my edit summaries and here in a prior comment, this reference to the "Hack Pack" is neither a wikipedia article (and thus doesn't belong in the "see also" section") nor properly cited (and thus probably shouldn't be in either this article or the other). I've tried to bring this to the discussion area, but it keeps getting added. HokieRNB 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is now the unofical name for the Killers of Comedy tour, it was first used by Artie Lange On the howard stern show a few weeks ago to refer to them, and is now used by the tour, incuding, T-shirts that are being sold by the tour. This is now a real term, the link is connecting to the killers of comedy page, on that page, there is the reference to their unofical name being the Hack Pack. My source is the howard stern show, becuase you dont listen to it, and havent heard the reference, does not mean that the term doesn't exist it only means that you are ignorant of it. You are not the end all decider of what is real, just because you haven't heard about something, does not mean that it doesn't exist. Please do not delete the reference again. I will continue to add it on every time you take it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpal55 (talk • contribs) 03:33, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the table for discussion. I will consider leaving this alone when you cite a verifiable source. Someone mentioning something on the radio doesn't cut it. Now, if someone were to publish in a verifiable source, "so and so said such and such on the radio", then you could cite that. HokieRNB 03:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

here are a couple of sources from the howard stern website scroll to THE “HACK PACK” ATTACKS A FAT MAN http://www.howardstern.com/rundown.hs?d=1185336000#10087 scroll to NEW COUPLE: JIM & ROBIN http://www.howardstern.com/rundown.hs?d=1187150400#10205 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpal55 (talk • contribs) 04:09, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

also go to http://www.thehackpack.com it is the killers of comedy website!

This being the case, the information should be worked into the article, since there is no wikipedia article for Hack Pack. Or, you could write one. HokieRNB 11:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

there doesnt have to be an article named "Hack Pack", the article is named "killers of comedy", Hack Pack is a new name adopted by the comedy team, which half the article is about, i will post a copy of the article here, as it seams that you still have never even read the artilce.

"The Hack Pack"

Howard Stern's sidekick, Artie Lange, referred to the group as the "Hack Pack" in July of 2007. The name caused controversy when Shuli confronted Artie on air and told him how offended he was. They have since informally adopted the title and, according to Sal The Stockbroker, produced tee-shirts with the moniker which are selling "like crazy." A song, to the tune of the theme music of Welcome Back Kotter, entitled "The Hack Pack" was recorded soon afterwards. The lyrics are as follows:

The Hack Pack, Two Jews, a racist and a smelly clown, The Hack Pack, Coming soon the firehouse in your home town, Telling jokes we've all heard many times before, Eating bleu cheese out of the ass of a tubby whore, Richard needs escort (Richard needs an escort), 'Cause he's passed out in the airport (passed out in the airport), If you see them you might think you're at an open mike, The Hack Pack, The Hack Pack, The Hack Pack, The Hack Pack

I can appreciate that there appears to be some material in the article you reference regarding the so-called "Hack Pack", but I fail to see any relationship between that term and this article. You may as well say "see also: Wolf pack" or "see also: Six pack". HokieRNB 20:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say then why put wack pack on, which had already been a link, but i see you just deleted it to prove your point, i tell you what, why dont i just delete this whole artilce, because i dont believe the brat pack exists. you cant go deleteing everything, because you are ignorant of it. the whole point of this is to have articles and links to things that people arent aware of, so they can learn, this isn't Hokiepedia, why dont i delete everyhting about islam hinduism, because i dont believe in it. that would be insane, and that is exactly what you are doing, even after i showed countles references, and the actual article about the hack pack, the simple truth is that you were wrong, and rather than accept that point, you would rather destroy links and articles to prove that you were right. every time you delete this link i will re-add it, your rule as absolute monarch of wikipedia has come to an end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpal55 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the wikipedia guidelines on linking, and while you are at it check out the guidelines on civility. If you'll notice I haven't made even one edit to any articles that actually deal with the so-called "Wack Pack", "Hack Pack" or anything remotely related to the radio show in question. I've only been concerned with the article about a group of teen actors from the 80s who starred in movies together. But thanks for the idea for Hokiepedia... I'll see if I can get one of those going. HokieRNB 00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why link to rat pack, or splat pack, or frat pack. they have nothing to do with brat pack, other than the fact that they all rhyme with rat pack, the same as hack pack and wack pack. i think the reason that you are deleting them is that you hate howard stern, therefore are deleting links to anything that is related to it. please stop vandalising the page. Jpal55 02:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason is that the Rat Pack and the Frat Pack are groups that have a connection (thus the word "link")... they don't just share a word in their title. They are groups of actors who starred in movies together. (Also, rat rhymes with brat rhymes with frat) Unless you are able to give a legitimate reason why this article ought to have these links in the "see also" section (implying some connection between the subject of the two articles), I can't agree to them staying. As I said before, I would not be opposed to you working the content into the article in a way that is constructive and encyclopedic. For instance, if you can find a verifiable source that links "The Brat Pack" to the so-called "Wack Pack", then the article should state so (probably in the Wack Pack article). In other words, I would not object to the following (if it were true): "In his New Yorker review, Jim Bellicose compared this group to..." However, to simply add a line that says, "The Wack Pack also has the word Pack in the title..." would not be appropriate. Maybe you should start an article titled List of groups that use the word "pack" and then put all of them there. HokieRNB 02:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I've never listened to the Howard Stern show. I have nothing against the show, only against pointlessly linking to a page that has no relationship to the article in question. HokieRNB 02:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

the hack pack is a group of comedians all working together, paralelling the rat pack as a group of singers/comedians working together at gigs, similar to actors working together, etc. hack rhymes with wack rhymes with rat rhymes with frat rhymes with brat. because the word doesnt end with T doesn't mean that it doesnt rhyme, wack ends with a hard K, giving it the same sound as a hard T, rat, wack, same sound. 02:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

you were deleting the link originally, because you didnt belive it existed, and after i proved it existed, you started deleting it just because you didnt like it.Jpal55 02:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the link still doesn't exist. It's piped to an article with a different title. I'm not deleting it because I don't like it. I'm deleting it because its relationship to the subject of the article has yet to be cited in a verifiable, encyclopedic way. I can state that "Underwear" exists, and I can even point you to a citation that makes "Underwear" a legitimate topic for a wikipedia article, but I doubt that editors would allow me to place a link to the article for "Underwear" in the "see also" section of the article for "Delaware". The link of "appeared together in films" is critical to the understanding of the term. There are countless groups of entertainers, and the fact that any of them might "rhyme" or end with "pack" is not the point. The point is whether one can establish a credible relationship between them, and particularly whether that relationship has been noted in some verifiable secondary source. By the way, I can have more than one reason for deleting your additions. It is far more likely that I would delete them because I don't like you, not that I didn't like the term. But I'm not. I'm deleting it because it's not relevant, nor is it properly sourced, nor does it add constructively to the quality of this article. HokieRNB 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

the link to frat pack, brat pack, wack pack, splat pack and hack pack are also on the see also of rat pack and the see also of frat pack, etc. if you delete 2 of those links, then you would also have to delete the rest of the links, as rat pack and brat pack have nothing to do with the actors in the brat pack. they are all realeated because they are all groups of people that work together, and the name of their group rhymes with rat pack. not because they all have some relation to the people that were in the brat pack. if there are more groups of people that work together and their name rhymes with rat pack, then i encourage them to post a link on each of the pages, i dont delete them all because i havent heard of them before. Jpal55 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

also a link doesnt have to go directly to a page that is titles with the title of the link, the hack pack is the alternate name for "killers of comedy" if you went to http://www.thehackpack.com you would see that it also goes to the killers of comedy web page, and on that page, they sell tshirts and hats that have the hack pack title on them. also on the wikipedia page for killers of comedy, half the page is about them now being known as the hack pack. Jpal55 03:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It really has nothing to do with whether they are related. It has to do with whether their relationship is both verifiable and encyclopedic. Show me the secondary source (a magazine article, newspaper article, book, other trusted third party website) that does what each of the others do - establish the link between them. Clearly sources that cited the "Rat Pack" wouldn't have referred to later iterations, as they didn't exist yet. However, both the sources cited in this article make the connection to the original "Rat Pack" so the relationship is noted. Clearly, neither of those sources could make mention of the "Frat Pack" since the term hadn't been coined. However, if you look at the USA Today article cited, you'll see it makes clear reference to both the "Brat Pack" of the 80s and the "Rat Pack" of the 60s. Therefore, the connection is made. However, you have yet to give me one source that actually makes the connection between the so-called "Hack Pack" and any of these groups. They may have similarities, but conjecturing about those similarities is called original research. We can't do that. My concern is not for the Rat Pack and Frat Pack articles, but with this one. And I'll keep editing it within the scope of the guidelines of wikipedia. HokieRNB 03:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ok i just edited this page to have a description of the hack pack and wack pack at the top of the page, because you were so conserned about why there was a link, so now that the article contains information about the hack pack and wack pack, you shouldnt have a problem with the links

furthermore there are no third party published documents on the hack pack, as it is a brand new name, there are countless pages on wikipedia that have to do with things like descriptions of tv episodes, that have just aired, so there is no published book or magazine article on the plot outline of episodes. so just because no one has published a book or newspaper or magazine article on something, does not mean that it doesnt exist. furthermore, you are saying that you are NOT arguing that it doenst exist, and in the same sentance, saying you are deliting it because there are no published documents on the hack packJpal55 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My concerns are multiple:

• The terms Rat Pack, Brat Pack, and Frat Pack have been discussed in published sources, and thus are notable and should be included. I am still concerned that the terms Wack Pack and Hack Pack are only sourced from the show itself and its website... even the articles for those pages are tagged as being unsourced.
• The relationship between the former groups and the latter is tenuous at best, and totally unsourced. I've seen no credible evidence that these names are "in homage" to anything (I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying it's not cited on any wikipedia pages that I've seen).
• The rationale for the edits has been sadly lacking, with most edits just being a click of "undo", and with citing things like "other crap exists so this should stand".
• The manner in which these edits were initially done, without discussion, and with seemingly little attention to wikipedia policy and guidelines, concerned me.

That said, I think I'll leave the links alone and see if they stand the test of time and other editors. HokieRNB 11:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Judge Reinhold

What about Judge Reinhold? An Internet search for "Judge Reinhold Brat Pack" seems to turn up references indicating that he was a minor member of the Brat Pack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.214.200 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I could see that. 208.53.104.68 (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)amyanda2000

Jon Cryer

Just wondering...