# Talk:Pierce Brosnan

Needs some more info on his other movies - while the list is there there's no mention of any of his other films.

And nothing about Don't Talk to Strangers from 1994. -- Darklock 17:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
What about The Spy?Kdammers (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but wasn't Pierce Brosnan in some TV miniseries set in Hong Kong? Called "Shogun"? Some adaptation of a series of books by an american or british author? If so, why no mention of it on this page?
edit: Sorry, not Shogun. Noble House was what I was looking for.

needs checking, but IIRC he was on the shortlist for Bond when Dalton got it, but was locked into Remington Steele.
I think he was actually announced as having the part but then Remington Steelegot was unexpectedly revived and a clause in his contract locked him in.
The article is correct as of today. Only after he was officially announced for Bond did NBC see fit to renew the television show and enforce his contract. --Dhartung | Talk 10:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How come there is hardly anything about the role that made him famous and I would argue was the role he was best at --Remington Steele?  There must have been a section about that at one point.  Why was it taken out?  That was stupid.  Put it back.  --Mccommas (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Should something be said on his accent? In the Bond films he talks a mix of RP/irish/american...

Peirce was born in Navan, so I'll change it if no one minds. Fergananim

No, according to his official webiste he was born in "Drogheda, County Louth, Ireland". See [1]. K1Bond007 01:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

It is actually wrong. Drogheda is partially in Meath and partially in Louth. The hospital in which he was born is in the County Meath part (by a couple of metres! I was born there too so I know the location). People often forget that Drogheda straddles two counties, so I've removed the County Louth bit. It is also irrelevant. Navan people, and people from most of Meath are all born in that hospital. There is no maternity hospital in Meath other than that one (that is only in Meath by a few metres) but in a town often (wrongly) said to be in County Louth alone. So the country location of the Our Lady's Hospital is irrelevant. He is a Navanman. Like all Navan people he simply couldn't be technically born there and his mother went to OLH to give birth, then came back to Navan afterwards. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gif\(caint) 01:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Lourdes hospital is firmly in the Louth part of Drogheda. Trust me, I live in the meath part and although im not sure where the border is exactly I know that everywhere in the town on the northside of the Boyne is in Louth. However I think that the addition of his exact birthplace is pointless.

Wrong hospital. His official website says "1953 -- May 16th – Pierce Brendan Brosnan born at St. Mary’s Hospital, Drogheda, County Louth, Ireland." K1Bond007 18:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
By this logic, all us Meathmen who happened to have been born in a hospital in Dublin are Jackeens. You can have your shite, lads. We are Meathmen, no matter how much of our taxes are used to build hospitals in Dublin, which we have to use. Pierce Brosnan is as much a Meathman as Seán Boylan, Toirdhealbhach Ó Cearbhalláin and Tommy Dowd. 86.40.52.44 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree with the above (minus the Jackeen comment!). The hospital should not count as a birthplace, rather the location of the family home one was brought up in. Please also note that Pierce Brosnan's official site has changed the birthplace to Navan, County Meath. Heggyhomolit (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
We can also confirm that he must have been born in a hospital other than Our Lady of Lourdes, since its own Wikipedia page and the sources cited there state that it was founded in 1955 - two years after Brosnan's birth in 1953. Moloch dhalgren (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the article that hopefully are non-controversial. These are on the Dalton films where there's evidence of different editors pulling different ways; i.e. someone says "Dalton's films flopped" and someone else adds "but they did OK in Europe". Or someoen says "the Dalton films were unsuccessful" and someone else adds "but critically acclaimed", etc... I've tried to simplify this because The Living Daylights wasn't unsuccessful it was a worldwide smash and was a big hit in the US. Licence to Kill was a hit, I think even in the States, but for a Bond film its US returns were disappointing. However, this is  relative and it isn't the same thing as being commercially unsuccessful. I've also removed the bit about Dalton's films being critically acclaimed. I think this is someone, again, trying to balance things up, but although The Living Daylights was well-received Licence to Kill got very mixed reviews. This is also, of course, an article on Brosnan so we don't need to go on about the Dalton films more than is really necessary for context.  JW 20:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
"Licence to Kill" got 80% good reviews from preview audiences and only did disappointingly due to a poor marketing campaign in the States. Dalton remains the best actor to play Bond, with his RADA training and experience in Shakespeare, and he is unquestionably the most accurate 007 in relation to the novels.

The introduction stated that Pierce is an "Anglo-Irish actor". I changed it to "Irish" as I don't understand why he should be called anything else. He lived in London between the ages of 11 to 32, and is currently a US citizen, but I have never heard him refer to himself as anything other than Irish. Cheers. Fergananim 09:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm also taking out the 'American' in the introduction stating him as 'Irish-American'. Many foreign actors live in America to further their career, that does not mean however they become American. He's Irish, nothing more, nothing less. Cobine 21:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Pierce Brosnan is Irish, so it boggles me that somebody keeps refering him as Irish-American in this page.  Users have been called vandals for making this simple factual change.  I will change it back and if a user does not believe this to be justified, the may check the defenition of Irish American, which is "citizens of the United States who can claim ancestry originating in the west European island of Ireland."  If anything at all it could be mentioned that he is Irish, and holds Dual Irish and US citizenship.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.142.98.11 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 

I'll bet if he was a terrorist there wouldn't be any attempt to make him Anglo or American!! Now that I'm here may I add the new photo is c**p; the old one was very nice. Why change it? (Sarah777 23:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC))
He doesn't simply live in the United States, he is an American citizen. Please see WP:MOSBIO, which dictates that a person's country of citizenship should be stated in their introductory paragraph - The opening paragraph should give:: Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.). I did not remove the "Irish" part because he did indeed become notable while an Irish citizen, thus fulfilling part of the outlined criteria. However, his current country of citizenship should be stated in the opening. All Hallow's Wraith 08:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The trouble with "Irish-American" is that it is normally used for people born in the United States who are of Irish ancestry rather than Irish people who have immigrated and taken up citizenship. It is not necessarily inaccurate to call Brosnan an Irish-American but I think it would tend to mislead people. In this article, the reader can look at the text and see exactly what is meant by "Irish-American" in this particular case: but if Pierce Brosnan is ever referred to as an Irish-American without an accompanying explanation, most people will take this to mean that he is American-born. "Irish-born American citizen" or simply "Irish-born American" would remove any ambiguity. Conval 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Brosnan holds dual citizenship from Ireland and the USA. He is an Irish actor who holds both Irish and American citizenship. I think this is the most acceptable compromise for an introduction to the article, any other suggestions welcome. Heggyhomolit (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Bond chart at the bottom says Brosnan was Bond until 2002. I believe it should actually say either 2003 or 2004 as he played the role one last time in the videogame Everything or Nothing. 23skidoo 12:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree only because I think we should limit it to the films. If we include video games then we have to squeeze in Sean Connery for the latest release and that would be just "messed up" to consider. And then we might have to evaluate Never Say Never Again too. Too confusing. Keep it official. Keep it films. My opinion anyway. K1Bond007 13:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean Sir Sean Connery is apparently providing the voice for the video game version of "From Russia with Love", so using that logic one could say Connery played the role of James Bond until 2005!

"A number of actors were then screentested for the role, notably Sam Neill, but ultimately were passed over by Cubby Broccoli."
Is that a typo? I've never heard of anyone named Cubby Broccoli.

Broccoli was the producer of the James Bond films starting from Dr. No - Licence to Kill (although he had a major impact on GoldenEye and probably Tomorrow Never Dies too). Cubby is his well-known nickname. See Albert R. Broccoli. K1Bond007 04:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way of determining whether Brosnan was born in 1953, as he claims, or 1951 as many sources say?

His website says 1953. I think we should go with that. K1Bond007 18:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The National Records say he was born in 1951. Also Halliwell's Who's Who in the Movies (2006 edition) says 1951. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.129 (talk • contribs) .

As stated his website says 1953. From everything I've read he himself has said he was born in 1953 over and over. Contrary to what was posted in an edit summary, his own birth certificate is actually available for purchase online (at various times on eBay) and it says 1953. The certificate was actually posted online by his agent, however, it appears to have been taken down. I suppose if we want to be really thorough about this we can have some sort of carbon dating done :P K1Bond007 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Have you actually seen this National Record saying 1951? If so please find a way to cite this so that all readers can see for verifiability. Searching on this I can't find anything to back up your claim other than a couple websites that asset it's 1951 without any source or discussion. First you said it was the birth certificate, but I now know that's false. K1Bond007 19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
So Brosnan gets his agent to put out some fake birth certificate to make people think he isn't too old to keep playing Bond? Wow, what hard evidience. And yes, I have been to the National Records Office in London where I looked Brosnan up - and he was born in 1951. Not surprising that he lied about his age, so did Lazenby (born 1933, claimed 1939) and Dalton (born 1944, claimed 1946).

What would Brosnan's birth certificate be doing in the National Records Office in London, seeing as how he was born in the Republic of Ireland? And if it wasn't his birth cert you saw, then precisely which document did you see with the year "1951" on it? Demiurge 20:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Well-put. And NHS and Social Security records are not publicly available. Unlikelyheroine (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It was his NHS and Social Security records from the 1970s.

I'm pretty certain people's NHS and Social Security records (even those of celebrities) aren't available for public viewing, so while you may indeed be correct, this claim is unverifiable. Demiurge 15:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,673018_10_0_,00.html

There are just as many reports of Brosnan being told by the Bond producers that they would carry on without him, essentially fire him so to speak even though he technically wasn't under contract, which Brosnan confirmed. http://jam.canoe.ca/Movies/Artists/B/Brosnan_Pierce/2004/10/14/756872.html His attitude towards the Bond producers in 2004-05 negative and Brosnan went on record multiple times in various interviews about how he felt about EON and him being fired. These reports make the "firing" hypothesis much more plausible than his leaving on his own will. http://www.playboy.co.uk/article/16355/playboy-interview-pierce-brosnan http://www.culture.com/news/item/7652/brosnan-tells-bond-producers-f-you.phtml  (129.42.208.183 (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC))
Does it say that Brosnan left of his own free will? Span (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
In that same section, the statement is made that Brosnan was aware that Bond fans objected to Roger Moore staying in the role until he was 58. This should be removed because 1) It's an irrelevance used to bolster the impression that Brosnan left voluntarily, which he did not; 2) There is no citation for this assertion and; 3) Fans did not object to Moore in the role due to his age, as shown by hard box-office numbers. According to the site the-numbers.com, Moore's last Bond film topped his previous one in total box office (U.S. combined with world-wide). His last Bond was OCTOPUSSY, and it grossed 255,400,000 U.S, topping his previous Bond, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY by nearly 5 million. In contrast, Brosnan's first Bond, A VIEW TO A KILL, lagged both of those films significantly, grossing only 202,955,920. It certainly doesn't sound like the fans were pushing Moore to leave - it sounds like they were let down when he did leave! Oldsmobile (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A view To A Kill was not Brosnan's first Bond! It was Roger Moore's last Bond (rather than Octopussy). All you have to do is read the fact here at Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.130.113.142 (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Pierce Brosnan, is the face of aquascutum. I think that should be included.
see their website: www.aquascutum.co.uk for more info.
This is Dorian Gray 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This article if very close to getting GA status. The references are clear and in my opinion, they are reliable. It's well written and contains a reasonably broad overview of Brosnan's life. However, to comply with GA standards, all of the images, if not free, must have  detailed fair use rationales, and some of the images in this article do not. Therefore, I'm putting this on hold for a short amount of time until these images are tagged properly. Otherwise, good work. 

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (enough images: lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Smomo 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As the images have now been tagged, I am happy to pass this article as a Good Article. For things to improve, I think more information about him as a person and his personal life is needed. Along as content added stays up to standard and includes proper citations, you are well on the way to FA. Take a look at some other FAs and compare them to this. Smomo 18:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please remove this from his biography?
http://k1bond007.shackspace.com/James%20Bond/Statistics/world_admissions.png
Here's the most selling with inflation. 
01. Dr. No (1962) - $384,662,260
02. From Russia with Love (1963) - $503,238,732
03. Goldfinger (1964) - $786,109,249
04. Thunderball (1965) - $873,775,665
05. You Only Live Twice (1967) - $652,559,281
06. On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) - $465,481,865
07. Diamonds Are Forever (1971) - $559,239,693
08. Live and Let Die (1973) - $710,900,787
09. The Man with the Golden gun (1974) - $386,403,405
10. The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - $597,403,398
11. Moonraker (1979) - $565,980,043
12. For Your Eyes Only (1981) - $419,466,512
13. Octopussy (1983) - $367,658,132
14. A View to a Kill (1985) - $276,614,498
15. The Living Daylights (1987) - $328,709,154
16. Licence to Kill (1989) - $246,015,000
17. Goldeneye (1995) - $450,445,866
18. Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) - $405,215,336
19. The World is not Enough (1999) - $424,164,872
20. Die Another Day (2002) - $468,949,188 
21) Casino Royale (without inflation 2006) - $593,597,723 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam Leo Fisher (talk • contribs) 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

The article doesn't state that it's the fourth highest-selling Bond movie, but rather, "the 4th highest worldwide gross of any film in 1995". The citation,[2], backs the statement up. -- Britishagent 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering why somebody removed this quote? The guy was actually thinking he was going to do two more Bond films (while promoting his "last")....he never did another one and a rather public fallout took-place between him and the producers of a film series that had dominated his life. So its going back in!! Whataboutbob 16:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly it didn't add to the article. I'm with you, it describes Brosnan's prospects of continuing the role, despite his comments on the Die Another Day commentary.—My Name Is URL 18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. Purvis and Wade began writing a fifth film with Brosnan in the role in 2004. - My Name Is URL 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope. They didn't.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.245.132 (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 


### Edits from Banned User HC and IPs
1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.
2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255
AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255
AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. I have commented out two uncited facts, but they may be reinserted if citations are found. I also expanded the lead a bit, but it could probably use a little work per WP:LEAD regarding its level of detail and summary. Cheers, CP 23:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The intro to this article says he has both Irish and American citizenship but he's quoted in one of the sources to this article (http://www.metro.co.uk/fame/interviews/article.html?in_article_id=1024&in_page_id=11) as saying he can't vote in U.S. elections because he's not an American citizen.
72.44.3.16 (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing the Irish Catholic category. This person also did it for the Enya article page and said the person wasn't noted for this. I have included information that Enya performed at the Vatican in December 1995, and that she doesn't like to be categorized as New Age in the sense that she doesn't identify with New Agers because she is Catholic. I also included an article that had her saying she attends mass with her family and sings in the choir.
Pierce Brosnan is Irish and Catholic. Becoming a NATURALIZED American doesn't make one NOT Irish Catholic if one's ethnicity is irish. He isn't an American of Irish descent. He became an American citizen late in life. He wasn't born here or grew up here as an Irish American child like Conan O'Brien. You can keep the American-Catholic category since American isn't an ethnicity.
Also, Pierce Brosnan is a practicing Catholic and he got married in an Irish Catholic church sometime back in 2000 in Ireland! There are tons of articles and photos of the wedding! His wife even wore a special dress for the Catholic ceremony that covered her shoulders so as not to offend the Church. She wore a strapless dress for the reception.
Stop deleting these categories that are relevant to a person's biography. Having a problem with Catholicism doesn't take away the fact that an actor, musician, or other person on Wikipedia is Catholic. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pierce Brosnan was born in Ireland to Irish parents, who had Irish parents. He lived there for most of his early years, he holds an Irish passport and was naturalised in the US for the purpose of remaining there indefinitely because he is a Hollywood actor. This does not make him American. Irish-American is a term used to describe American-born people who have an Irish parent(s) or grandparent(s). John Travolta, Mel Gibson, the Baldwin brothers are examples of Irish-American. Maureen O'Hara is IRISH but has both Irish and US passports so she is an example of Brosnan's situation. Please do not change this back to Irish-American as it is extremely misleading. Heggyhomolit (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You could call him Irish or American. But I understand your point about 'Irish American', he wasn't American born of Irish ancestry which is the more common usage. But you are wrong about one thing, his becoming a citizen DOES make him an American. I would say 'Irish born American' or Naturalized citizen or Dual citizen of The USA and Ireland. 
Actually Timothy Dalton would be more accurately described as 'Irish American' as he is a U.S. citizen by birth through his American mother who was half Irish. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC))
This is getting ridiculous. Someone keeps adding back the Irish-American category. There is already the Naturalized American category, and also the American category (for naturalized nationality). He is IRISH, not Irish American. His ancestors didn't come to America. He was born and raised in Ireland and became an American citizen as a middle-aged adult. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Mel Gibson is Australian you ninny .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.221.128 (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 

There seems to be a major misunderstanding about some basic grammar of the English language. Irish-American and Irish American do  not  have the same meaning at all. The hyphen in the former spelling clearly seems meaningless to some but it isn't at all. If you write Irish-American (with a hyphen) you denote a composition of both words and their meanings and specifically in this case a dual nationality of the person described, whereas when you write Irish American (without a hyphen) the former word becomes an adjective to the latter word, which is the substantive, and it thus specifies the meaning of a said substantive further. Specifically in this case it describes an American citizen with Irish ancestry. Therefore describing Pierce Brosnan, and anyone else in the same situation, as Irish-American (with hyphen!) is technically correct as it literally means that he holds both Irish and American citizenship, which is the case. Tvx1 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
This discussion probably needs to be taken up on Talk:Irish American, since it clearly affects more than just the Brosnan entry. Tvx1's hyphen nuance difference seems legitimate to me, but Irish-American currently redirects to Irish American, and no clear discriminating text is offered there anyway. I think we're dealing with the separation of prescriptive vs descriptive definitions, and online dictionaries are fairly silent on the matter, alas.  jxm (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, Irish-American should not redirect to Irish American as they have different, non-interchangable meanings. Irish-American should provide separate links to the articles of both countries involved. I have already raised the matter on the talk page of Irish American Tvx1 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone has put very emphatic commented information in the bio that Brosnan was born in Wales, is Welsh, is only an honorary OBE because he's Welsh, yada yada. They've changed the infobox to state that he was born in Wales, even while the text correctly identifies him, the founder of Irish Dreamtime movies, as an Irishman, born in County Meath. Why someone has gone to these lengths, I don't know, but I'm about to fix this and hope that this person's vandalism does not recur.Dreamalynn (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody knows which of his four Bond Movies was his favorite? Connery's was With Love from Russia, Moores' was The Spy who loved me. Did Brosnan said anything about this? I mean he can't be satisfied with Die another way, especially because he wanted to play always a darker Bond. --88.68.202.25 (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Brosnan said he liked GoldenEye the best. Die Another Day was his least favourite, and he has criticized it in several interviews since he stopped playing Bond. (JerryAtkinson (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

Does anyone know how tall Pierce Brosnan is?
I know that he is, perhaps, a few Inches taller than Sean Bean when I saw them both in GoldenEye but I'd like to know what his exact height is. --Arima (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Brosnan is exactly 6'1". Sean Bean is 5'10". (JerryAtkinson (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC))
I have read over and over again Pierce Brosnan is over 6' tall. What seems very strange to me is when my boys were very young (they are 21 and 22 now) we were eating at The Hard Rock Cafe in Hollywood, CA after a long day at Universal Studios. As I was returning from the restroom, all the employees were getting us back to our seats and had secured and sectioned off the entire top floor. With all the commotion you knew someone important was entering the room. Then right past me walked Pierce Brosnan and his current wife, they were not married at the time I believe. I am not quite 5'7", and I certainly would not be wearing high heels with 2 kids in tow at Universal Studios. Pierce Brosnan is shorter than I am. We were so close I could have touched him. There is no way he is that tall. He is a very good looking man, but short, and no one can convince me otherwise. I saw it with my own eyes, and my husband even commented, "who would guess James Bond is shorter than his {me} wife". I would love to see him stand next to Nicole Kidman in real life! Why is that so important anyway? It just boggles my mind when I had this real life experience and keep reading something else that I know is not true. Dee57 ([[User 

Dee 57, if you ever saw the movie The Matador, you'll notice that Brosnan towers over Greg Kinnear, who is reportedly 5'9". He also towers over most of the other normal-sized actors in his other movies. I doubt that the producers could somehow have faked this in every single one of his movies. Let's just accept that you misremembered, and that the man is tall. About 6' 1" tall, to be exact.
Younggoldchip (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Nope, my two sons and husband also saw this too so I am sorry to burst your bubble but I know this for a fact.
He's 1.88m people, that's 6'2" guys and there's no doubt about it. He says he is, he looks it and he actually is!
David-King (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bulldozers to move on Brosnan's home — Evening Herald --candle•wicke 04:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To state "Brosnan is a committed Catholic" with this citation is to misrepresent  what he said:  When asked if he still practises the Catholicism of his childhood he replied 

"That never leaves you. So when there are churches around, I go to church. I went yesterday. I also love the teachings of Buddhist philosophy. It's my own private faith. I don't preach it, but it's a faith that is a comfort to me when the night is long."

This inference is quite different. Since Eversman has been keen to put an "American Roman Catholics" category on Brosnan for a while, it seems like an argument is being made in the WP article for the strength of his Catholicism. The second citation doesn't add any detail, it just mentions he was a Catholic as a child. The given longer Reader's Digest quote reflects the balance of his beliefs. One set of beliefs does not preclude the other.Spanglej (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
If a person is attending the Mass when ever he can, then yes he is a committed Catholic and it should be noted under category of American Roman Catholics. BTW; quote from Daily Telegraph is the accurate one: "I was in Ireland and the first theatrical performance was being an altar boy at church. The whole celebration of the Catholic Mass. I was enjoying being up there and looked at. I still go to church. Went last night." So we have two references claiming his committed Catholicism, and what do you have? BTW RD article is from July 2008, and DT article is from June 2008. So DN article from December 2005 is irrelevant regarding his committed Catholicism.--Eversman (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP ". Categories regarding religious beliefs...should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief... and the subject's beliefs...are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." I'll also note that we don't interpret whether anyone is a committed anything in this way. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
As you can see I have provided two reliable references where Pierce Brosnan himself claims he was raised Catholic and that he is still a practising Catholic. So I don't understand why it shouldn't be noted, in the article, that he is a practising Catholic and there for I don't understand why it shouldn't be written under Category of American Roman Catholics. With regards--Eversman (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I have set right that he is a practising Catholic.

Those sources are not exactly accurately represented. The Daily News has him state he was brought up Catholic; in Reader's Digest he does say that he goes to church when there is one, but also that he practices Buddhism and that it's his private faith. So the suggestion that he is exclusively Catholic is patently untrue, and leaving out Buddhism is an inaccurate representation of the sources. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I think they are, it states that he was raised Catholic and it states that he is a practising Catholic. What about source from Daily Telegraph; "I was in Ireland and the first theatrical performance was being an altar boy at church. The whole celebration of the Catholic Mass. I was enjoying being up there and looked at. I still go to church. Went last night." You left that one out, regarding him practising his Catholic faith. BTW now you have twice time repeating that he was raised Carholic, in the early life section(where it should be) and personal life section(where it should state that he is a practising Catholic).--Eversman (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
He's not. He attends Mass when he can. That does not make him a practicing Catholic, which requires a bit more than just attending Mass. Oh, mentioning that he is raised Catholic in the personal section, that is fine, since it leads into his personal life: he attends church and practices Buddhism. Can we drop this now, and not try to make the sources say more than they do? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No we can't, because you are wrong. Just because you are admin, doesn't make you superior to me in this given issue. First of all, you are repeating the lines with writing that he was raised Catholic. That line already exists in the Early life section, where is should be. Second, I would like you to tell me what should a person do for you to call them practising Catholic? Should they kiss a statue of Christ and Holly Mary three times a day or what? I am asking this because my sister converted to Catholicism before here marriage, and she attends the Mass every now and then, and she considers herself a practising Catholic and she is considered a practising Catholic by here priest too. Further more, we have a quote from Fr Marcus Stock who is a General Secretary of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales and he states in his publication Catholic Schools and the Definition of a Practising Catholic: A person is considered practising Catholic if they have been baptised (or have been canonically received into full communion with the Catholic Church) and strive to observe the Church’s precept of attending Mass on Sundays and holidays of obligation. This is perhaps the most simple and common understanding of the term. So tell me, what from this quote doesn't fit in the Pierce Brosnan bio about his Catholicism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eversman (talk • contribs) 

I'm not an admin. I explained why mentioning the fact twice makes sense. Please ask your sister, her priest, and Fr. Marcus Stock if they are OK with calling someone a "practicing catholic" when they are also an adherent to a competing faith, one they call "my own private faith." One seriously wonders here what kind of interest you have in wanting to call people "practicing catholics." Please sign your messages using four tildes. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP states 
" Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.
Further,  BLP Categories, lists and navigation templates  specifically states that we should mention personal faith or orientation only when "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life". The fact that Brosnan (or anyone else) went to church is not a "notable activity". To state that Brosnan's belief is wholly Roman Catholic is questionable re the above. In "regard for the subject's privacy" references to his beliefs should be removed. BLP says they should be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Note: this holds for any and all BLPs.  Spangle  (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
so ridiculous debates here !! Please, ask him, as he is still alive, how he considers himself, or provide interviews, but stop trying to deduce as if you were the person! Some people makes too much religious proselytism here! People stop your ridiculous proselytism, and consider what he is says about himself. If he considers himself as "devout" write it, and says he considers him as "devout", if he doesn't, don't write it. And your personal opinion is nothing. Stay profesional. @Drmies We don't care if X's sister says something. Learn to use wikipedia and to quote the fact a person says about himself, that's all that is asked. Your private opinion, or mine, nobody cares!

Brosnan was doing Bond game voiceovers and considering further Bond roles in 2004. See article refs. Please don't change the dates without discussion. Span (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A wiki is basically a synthesis of information.  Please review my citation, which is a State of Hawaii official document available to anyone online:
http://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/opin_ord/ica/2010/apr/ica28392sdoada.pdf
Then instead of deleting every attempt I make to report real citable material, please attempt one contribution yourself.
The important facts of the document are 1999-2010 court proceedings between Lee & Young Vs. Brosnan & Smith.
Lee & Young asked for their riparian rights to be returned to the original state before Brosnan & Smith created an artificial lake upstream from them.  Lee & Young lost.
This case is an important precedent for all riparian rights cases in Hawaii, and if Brosnan was an environmentalist he might have considered the precedent he set, instead of only thinking about the artificial lake he needed.  I'm not biased either way, please feel free to report the facts any way you see fit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quash-asia (talk • contribs) 03:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 

If the issue is as important as you claim "for all riparian rights cases in Hawaii", you should have no difficulty finding reliable secondary sources to back that statement up. Otherwise personal interpretations of primary documents amounts to original research, as has been pointed out to you. 'A wiki may be a synthesis of material', but original research is contrary to policy on Wikipedia. RashersTierney (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not concerned with any interpretation.  Like I mentioned before, please feel free to "interpret" the primary data of the court case yourself.  If you want to cite the whole proceedings feel free.  There is also the 3 newspaper articles I cited.  I am already contacting several Universities to publish this material.  This page serving as a "paid resume" will cease to exist.  Wikipedia is for impartial unbiased information, and as such the truth will come out eventually.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quash-asia (talk • contribs) 09:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
No-one is disputing that there was a disagreement between neighbours that went to court. What you have failed to demonstrate is that it is inherently significant, other than involving a celebrity. Your comment above invites personal speculation on primary docs which is not permitted in articles here. As for "truth will come out eventually", see 'What Wikipedia is not'. RashersTierney (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the new revision shows how the case is significant.  Thanks for bringing me up to speed with with the wiki jargon, by the "truth will come out eventually," I mean that there are many sources available.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quash-asia (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
You clearly have not taken on board a single point made in relation to original research and the related issue of 'notability'. Loading your POV statements with primary sources does not address the issue. I would also ask you to immediately withdraw your personal and unfounded allegations, made here and elsewhere, and assume good faith (not an optional extra). RashersTierney (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand the 'blanket' accusation you have formed.  I have withdrawn the comment you infer is not made in good faith on this talk page.  I do not know what you mean by 'elsewhere.'Quash-asia (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
'Elsewhere' was on my Talk Page, since removed by you, and appreciated. The issue is more than sufficiently covered as since edited by another user, though the plethora of primary refs are unnecessary, in my opinion. RashersTierney (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Why do new editors assume that any removed material has been taken down by the disgruntled subject of the article? Hubris, perhaps. At WP there is a strong preference for secondary sources. If primary sources are given they generally are used to promote original research, that is to say, a position forwarded by the editor, not demonstrated by the documents.  You added two newspaper reports covering the land dispute which meets the guidelines better, although they don't give any sense that the land dispute is anything more than a neighbourly spat. Span (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Spanglej has advised me to post comments I left on his/her talk page about my decision to remove the myth that Timothy Dalton was the first actor the Bond producers approached to replace Roger Moore in 1986. I'm currently working on a discussion article for the Timothy Dalton talk page about this issue. Although we both know Wikipedia prohibits original research in articles, I do think I have sufficient documentary primary sources to prove that the producers approached the actors in the following order: Neill->Brosnan->Dalton. The 15 May 1986 New York Post reported that EON had signed Brosnan. Bond producer Cubby Broccoli did not consider or meet Dalton until Dalton was performing The Taming of the Shrew at the Haymarket theatre (London). At this meeting Dalton mentioned he could not do the film unless it was pushed back to the fall due to his Brenda Starr commitment. (Source: Broccoli autobiography, pp.280-281.) The 1 September 1991 Los Angeles Times reports that the production company producing Brenda Starr formed in May 1986 and production began in July 1986. Numerous newspapers and books report that The Taming of the Shrew with Dalton began its eight week run at the Haymarket starting June 1986. I rely on other credible primary sources to support my position. I will cite these in the impending Timothy Dalton talk page discussion. - Fanthrillers (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As to why I feel the United States categories should be excluded, see this discussion. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent interview with the man himself this minute on the Marian Finucane Show. He's talking about growing up in Navan, how his father abandoned him, how he lived with the O'Reilly family on St Finian's Terrace in Navan and now about arriving in England and the difference between both worlds: "you certainly felt for the first time the sting of prejudice and being ridiculed". Very detailed and well worth listening to. Link to show is above. 89.101.41.216 (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

He's also talking about Catholicism, spirituality and Buddhism - "I've embraced Buddhism". 89.101.41.216 (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
How is this meant for improving the article? NathanWubs (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

if he adopted 2 children and had 3 of his own why are the number of children presented as 3? Angelina Jolie also has adopted 3 children and 3 of her own and at her topic her number of children is 6. Ritvakirp (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Somebody keeps inserting this in the lead. Here is Wikipedia's policy: "Post-nominal letters, other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated. Honors issued by other entities may be mentioned in the article, but should generally be omitted from the lead." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Post-nominal_letters). If this award had been given by the government of Ireland, of which Brosnan is a citizen, then it should be in the lead. It wasn't. It therefore should be with his other foreign awards further down. 188.141.10.11 (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Post-nominal_letters

If Irish-American doesn't describe his nationality and status could someone please explain what does. Irish born Americans have always been described as Irish-Americans. If there is another way of reflecting this, I don't know what it would be. Perhaps and verifiable alternative could be introduced?--JOJ Hutton 18:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Irish is fine. His American citizenship is clearly mentioned in the lead: "he became an American citizen in 2004." If he has to be referred to as an "Irish-American", why doesn't Martin Sheen? 109.76.161.84 (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
He is an American and an Irish citizen so its proper to call him Irish American. Thats the term that is used.--JOJ Hutton 23:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Irish American refers to Americans of Irish descent. Its incredibly misleading. His American citizenship is already mentioned. Stevenbfg (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It also refers to Irish born Americans. Look it up.--JOJ Hutton 23:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Then once again, why isn't Martin Sheen called an Irish American? Or is it only Irish celebrities you decide to force the term "Irish American" on? He could hold British citizenship as well for all we know, considering he grew up in England. Stevenbfg (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, I've never edited that article. Perhaps it should. But don't use other articles as reference. Each article has its own consensus. Unless there is a wider community consensus at a project page or guideline.--JOJ Hutton 23:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes but "Irish American" is still misleading. How about "Pierce Brosnan is an Irish actor, film producer and environmentalist. He holds both Irish and American citizenship." I know we aren't supposed to reference other articles but that's how we compromised Daniel Day-Lewis, an article which I also edited. Stevenbfg (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
No its not misleading. Its only misleading if you want it to be. And besides, Pierce Brosnan's own bio on his own OFFICIAL WEBSITE calls him Irish-American. He therefore self identifies as Irish-American and Wikipedia has always taken a person wishes into consideration when they are categorized and/or referred to. That basically ends this discussion.--JOJ Hutton 23:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of his official website but that reference clearly indicates he has no problem with being called Irish American. I concede then. Stevenbfg (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank You.--JOJ Hutton 23:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
He's still referred to as solely Irish. How does Brosnan feel about his identity? I think we can all take a guess.--109.149.122.179 (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I see this has flared up again. Is it possible to finish this conversation? --John (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please stop tagging GoldenEye: Rogue Agent to Brosnan's profile? The actor, at the slightest, has no relation to the video game, and any similarities between his appearance if seen, which there aren't by any chance, are coincidental. The actor playing the presumed James Bond character in the game is Jason Carter, and by the time the game was made, Brosnan was already out of the Bond league, blocking his likeness, voice and image to be used in any film or video game released after Everything or Nothing. For proofs, check the following MI6-HQ.Com articles in the video game coverage section. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.70.183.30 (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC) 

"Brosnan has stated on television that he voted for Margaret Thatcher three times in a row (in the 1979, 1983, and 1987 general elections)."
I've removed this because it has no sources.  Also noteworthy that Brosnan is Irish, and would have to be a UK resident to be able to vote in a UK election.2600:1700:EA01:1090:B916:23E:4207:CD36 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Pierce-brosnan2019.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

What kind of claim to fame is it to be the FIFTH to do anything‽  Pierce Brosnan is best known for being the first and only actor to play the title role of the "Remington Steele" series! -- Mr. Lance E Sloan (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)