Talk:Billy Bob Thornton/Archive 1

Image?
I feel this page could do with a better photograph, one where he is mort obviously shown. Currently, he is very difficult to recognise. --CalPaterson 3 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)

"phobia for" doesn't sound right
The article says BBT has a "phobia for antique furniture." A "phobia" is a fear. Maybe he has an "obsession with" antique furniture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.71.178 (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is a phobia. I've heard him say that antique furniture freaks him out, and he doesn't like being around it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubc0724 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "phobia of," which is more correct.  PacificBoy  22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I cant understand how anyone can have a phobia of furniture Bouse23 20:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While you can, certainly, have a phobia of furniture, as described this isn't a phobia. A phobia is 'irrational, intense, persistent fear'. Being 'freaked out by' furniture of various types is possibly both irrational and persistent, but doesn't sound very intense at all. Sounds more as if Mr. Thornton is trying to make it out as more than what it is, since that's more 'cool' or what have you. 85.230.45.234 (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Italian ancestry
He has no Italian ancestry. James R. Duce, his great-grandfather, was born in Arkansas, as were both his parents. Questors 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with his family ancestry? Sven Erixon 07:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably the fact that at the time James Duce was born - in the mid 1800s (I presume but don't have the info Questors does) - there were no Italian immigrants living in Arkansas. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * maybe James R. Duce had an italian grandfather.............. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.74.186 (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Questors, Billy Bob is in fact of Italian ancestry! He is to be said of 25 percent Italian,25 percent Choctaw,& 50 percent Irish. 7:57, 11 November 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.242.8 (talk)

Maddox
Was the the kid's first father and gave up all rights? --Gbleem 04:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe he would be the second father after the biological parent. Nonetheless, earlier articles indicate that Thornton and Jolie adopted the Cambodian child together.  This is what was said in | Rolling Stone.  In her Petition for Divorce, Jolie | claims the child belongs to both her and Thornton.  However, on the Yahoo Answers -- consisting primarily of people who are tossing their "legal opinion" around -- the page says the following:


 * Did Billy Bob Thornton give up his parental rights so that Brad Pitt could adopt Angelina's son, Maddox?


 * Q. I always thought that Billy Bob Thornton was Maddox's adoptive father. He & Angelina were married when they adopted him together. Now Brad Pitt is in the process of adopting him as well?


 * A. Actually, Jolie adopted Maddox while she was still married to Thornton but she adopted him alone. Thornton has no rights to give up.

|Cited Look here to see the Yahoo page in its original form. There seems to be a general aversion on the part of the media from reporting any details, probably because of the child's age, but a huge amount of current speculation that Thornton never even adopted the child (although the Court records state otherwise). From the divorce paperwork, however, Jolie states under oath that both are parents. Obviously, Thornton must at some point have terminated his parental rights and the documents where he did so have yet to be disclosed. I think that the wave of "he never adopted" talk has more to say about the sensitivities of those parroting what they want to believe. Otherwise, it makes Brad Pitt's relationship with the children look all the more temporary and makes Jolie appear to not care about the relationship between a child and his father. 75.46.106.222 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thornton never adopted Maddox
(I realize this section is several years old, but I just wrote about this in the article so I wanted to adress it here.)

No, Thornton did not adopt Maddox. Yes, a married person can adopt alone in the state of California with the permission of their spouse. The most probable reason for Jolie to have adopted alone is that Thornton is not eligible to adopt due to his extensive marital history (more than one or two divorces is grounds for disqualification).

From a 2002 People report on their split:
 * Jolie has asked the court for custody of 11-month-old Maddox, whom she first met in a Cambodian orphanage last November while on one of her trips as a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations. Though the couple announced together the adoption of Maddox on March 12, a spokesman for the Immigration and Naturalization Service in Washington, D.C., says, "Only her name is on the [adoption] papers." Thornton, who has two young sons and a grown daughter from prior marriages, can adopt Maddox in California, but family law experts point out that the process typically takes six months.

From a 2009 interview with Thornton:
 * Thornton had enough of that during his marriage to Jolie. The press followed them to Cambodia, where she went in 2002 to adopt her first child, Maddox. "I'm still glad I did it because it was so important to her," he says. "Most people can't talk me out of the house, but she did." Contrary to several accounts, Thornton said he did not adopt Maddox, a Cambodian refugee, with Jolie, but he has spent time around the boy and says "he is a great kid, very intelligent."

Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

His name?
Is his name William Robert Thornton, or is Billy Bob really on his birth certificate? :-O Captain Caveman —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC).
 * It was stated as his birthname on Inside the Actors Studio (James Lipton: "So you're really that Southern?") All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IMDb.com has his name listed as William Robert Thornton. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. I'm changing it on the main page.108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC).
 * http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000671/108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC).
 * IMdb is wrong. Along with Thornton saying it on the Actor's Studio, at least two different publications, including USA Today have said it's the name on his birth certificate. I'm reverting it backBashBrannigan (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Travis Tritt
Thornton appeared in one of his music videos. Is that noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.134.128 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Sugarbat (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Fattest Boy in Clark County
In his youth he was famous as, yes you guessed it, The Fattest Boy in Clark County. I read it on a Fantale (pronounced like fantal) wrapper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.57.11 (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dead Man
he also palyed a role in Jim Jarmusch's "Dead Man"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.84.64 (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Elm Street
There are a lot of wild rumours flying around at the moment regarding BBT being in the Elm Street remake, but nothing has been confirmed. In fact it is probably just Chinese whispers as Englund was quoted as saying that Billy Bob would be a good choice, but did not actually say that he was definitly cast. I think that it is way too early to list Elm Street in the filmography at this point. magnius (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Choctaw?
http://sitesled.com/members/racialreality/americans.html Scroll to end (#4 of 8) Is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

CBC Interview
Having heard the original interview live and later watching it at YouTube, I cannot see how anyone could say Billy Bob got "very angry". He appeared and sounded nervous, and to some eyes he may have appeared either not awake or possibly even stoned. (I have no idea what his habits are and am not suggesting anything). So, I'm changing the "very angry" remark, as it is inflammatory and inaccurate. Csalmon (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The take on the interview is flattering to BBT. Jian's comments were inoffensive and he tried to focus on the band's music. In the outpouring of comments on the interview very few people took offense to his comments about Canadian audiences. People took offense at BBT's rude behaviour. This entry misrepresents that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.251.27 (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Contrary Opinion: During the CBC interview, BBT was belligerent insofar as he did not answer the questions as asked, offered non-sequitors, and replied to questions with questions. The Canadian national media (Globe and Mail, Apr. 9, 2009) revealed that his "handlers" had instructed the CBC not to bring up his movie career; the CBC interviewer, Jian Ghomeshi, introduced BBT and included a mention of his Oscar award, causing BBT to become uncooperative after that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.146.137 (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Asking Ghomeshi to to take him seriously had to have been a joke. You can stand in a garage, it doesn't make you a car. Ghomeshi on the other hand is a genuine rock star. He played in the band "moxy fruvous". Unlike BB, it's an actual band. Not a weekend hobby. Billy Bob just came across like another egocentric Hollywood hasbeen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.247.240 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we get a better source on this than a blog? Blogs (and user comment sections) are lousy sources and encyclopaedic -- particularly when discussing something contentious and involving the biography of a living person. There's lot of articles about this incident, see if you can find a more reliable/neutral article. It will make the entry better. Thanks WindyCityRider (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

One hopes that Canadian indignation over someone having the gall to be rude in an interview will die down soon, and this section can be trimmed a bit. It's currently about half as ,long as his entire Career section and almost as long as his Personal Life secion. Csalmon (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There never was much, if any, "Canadian indignation" over this. It is not similar to the Red Eye group on Fox making fun of Canadian soldiers while they're coming home in body bags. I live in the city of the interview and he was just considered another rude, spoiled Hollywood celebrity. So this item should already but shortened. Just a brief description of the incident and that he cancelled his tour is all that's needed.BashBrannigan (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree that the text regarding this incident should be brief, I believe that the following should be inserted: (after "...Thornton, but never directed his questions about this other career.") The host admitted during the interview that the producers had told him that Thornton did not want to “focus on” his acting career, and told him that “one of the only reasons that [the band] get(s) attention is because of the career you’ve had.” I think this illustrates the kind of borderline rudeness that causes those with either fragile or over-inflated egos to react in such a fashion. Especially when the host ignored the request not to talk about such subjects. Psydung (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to cut this down substantially. The story doesn't warrant this much space. I previously edited it to at least cut out 100 words. As long as it is the size it is, people will feel the need to clarify this and that and it'll just keep getting bigger. I just did another edit. Someone added that Thorton was only saying Canadian audiences were "like mashed potatoes wihtout the gravy" and not all Canadians and then added that "he preferred more aggressive audiences". I left in the clarification that he was talking about audiences, but I really think that's splitting hairs. I removed the"aggressive audiences" clarification because "mashed potatoes without the gravey" is self explanatory. The person also added "after negative reviews, Thorton cancelled his Canadian tour". This was biased as it was implying that the reviews caused him to cancel the tour. Where's the proof? However until someone shortens this section further it's going to keep getting bigger! --BashBrannigan (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I just removed a preposterous entry that was just someone mouthing off his opinions. --BashBrannigan (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not trying to provoke another edit war, but to say that Thornton sounded "nervous and confused" at the beginning of the interview just isn't right. I,(like many others I'm sure who are editing this piece)saw this on YouTube, and Billy Bob had a chip on his shoulder, and was looking to pick a fight.  Asc85 (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Moby jokingly referred to it in his interview with Jian. The thing is, if BBT was referring to Jian, and not Canadains, why didn't he say so--given how easily he found it to be impolite. Also, I wonder if a little bit of racism played a role.Civic Cat (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Split?
How about if the Boxmasters had their own Wiki entry? It wouldn't really be a fork, they have released albums. Thoughts? RomaC (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I like that they don't, as it makes it look like they are a nothing band, that wouldn't even warrant an interview on canadian radio. but that being said, it should be entered.  Suivoh (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They dont need an entry, besides this CBC interview and that one of their members is BBT, they aren't noteworthy. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)  Correction, someone just gave them an entry.  Though I dont think its noteworthy.  --Clausewitz01 (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Controversial"
I've removed the word "controversial" from a section heading. Wikipedia's voice should not be used for characterizations like that. The prose of the section, together with the citations, are more than sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Daughter murder indictment
Any reason why the murder indictment of his daughter hasn't been included in the article? 68.146.81.123 (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an article on Billy Bob Thornton, not his children. The children of celebrities are not celebrities because their parent is. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Bad behaviour of a celebrity's children are only relevant if the celebrity behaves in some way to make it relevant. As an example, hockey player Guy Lafluer's son had been in trouble with the law in the past, but as far as I know, this was not mentioned in Wikipedia. However, it became relevant when the hockey player himself was charged with aiding his son to avoid a court mandated curfew and then it was included. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you making the case that one would not be affected by this? It should, at the very least, have a mention in the 'Personal Life' section. This is a MURDER we are talking about, he would certainly be affected by it! Murder isn't a slap on the wrist...85.230.45.234 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This issue is not whether it affects him personally or not. It probably does, but unless Thornton acts significantly in some way publicly or at least publicly addresses the situation and says something significant I still don't see that it's relevant. What would get into a newspaper, does not necessary belong in Wikipedia. Also, you are innocent until proven guilty, not just charged. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah? Well now she's guilty.  One can easily make the argument that this reflects badly on him for being a poor parent.  When the child of a very famous person commits an extremely heinous crime such as, in this case, murdering the baby child of your best friend, it is very noteworthy and relevant.  Even with the Casey Anthony trial going on in that very same courthouse, this story here made news all across the world.  Since Brumfield's arrest, the details of the case have been intertwined with questions about Brumfield's relationship with her father. Oh, and Billy Bob did make a personal statement about the conviction. BANNED IMPERSONATOR 08:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First, my removal of this material isn't vandalism. You need to read up on Wikipedia vandalism and good faith edits, before using that as a reason for editing. Second, if Thornton did make a statement then that may be a legitimate reason for adding it in the article. But you need to provide the source of that statement. Third, you changed "career" to "hobbie" which is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Who said it was a "hobby"? Is it just your personal opinion? Finally, it's irrelevant that Thornton may have been a poor father. You need to provide a article that says that he was a poor father towards this woman. I'm not against having the criminal charge in the article if the proper foundation can be given. I'm leaving it in now until a consensus can be reached, but I'm reverting the "hobby" BashBrannigan (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * All you do is complain and go around deleting peoples stuff. You hard ever offer anything constructive, you just slash and burn.  i also didn't change anything about career to hobbie.  i don't know what hobbies that guy has anyways. BANNED IMPERSONATOR 06:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Politics
I know there may not be enough to make a section about hi politics, however on Real Time With Bill Maher, on June 26 2009, after a story Billy Bob said about smoking/drinking in pubs/public, Maher said "That's why people vote republican. Because they think the republican party is the one who is going to stand up to a meddling bureaucracy. So when they send you out on the sidewalk it makes guys like you think maybe I should vote for the republicans" Maher then asked "Do you?"

Billy Bob responded "Do i vote for the republicans? No sir." RiseAgainst01 (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity Death Curses
Removed an entry of a supposed "Billy Bob Death Curse". There were no references so I undid on that reason alone. I also googled and the only references were to tabloid-like sites. I thought i should give my 2 cents worth on this type of stuff. The poster said this was similar to the "Six degrees of separation". Not true: Six Degree has some solid math behind it. Also, it's not like the "John Wayne death curse" which is included in wikipedia. Those deaths were suspiciously related to the movie Conquerer which was filmed on a former nuclear test site. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Pluto
There are mentions of music influences, and don't hear much feedback about any new music acts. Sling Blade has a wonderful Poetry Piece with Col. Bruce Hampton, I believe. Saw Him at the Freebird Cafe, and sound great. There should be a Boot Camp for Musicians. Woodchuck75.203.93.191 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Weight?
In one his early movies like Tombstone, he is practically unrecognisable (except for the voice) as he was a big man with a round face....then he became really skinny. Any dates when this remarkable change happened?

It's interesting thing to note as it's usually the reverse for most stars, sic John Travolta, Leonardo di Caprio and most noticeablely Steven Seagal who have all gained large amounts of weight from their early years! But Thornton went from being a big guy to a rake.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.19.243 (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing film credit
2008 credit for the movie swing vote for billy bob thornton not present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.187.234 (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should aggravated manslaughter conviction of Billy Bob Thornton's estranged daughter be included in Thornton's article?
Should aggravated manslaughter conviction of Billy Bob Thornton's estranged daughter be included in Thornton's article? BashBrannigan (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of accuracy - given that this is a BLP issue - I've renamed this section from "...murder..." to "...aggravated manslaughter..." because that's what the article says. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Univolved Editor- No, unless he was significantly involved in the crime, or his daughter's defense of the crime etc. as reported by reliable sources. If the sources only mention him as the estranged father than no need to say anything about the daughter as it is off topic to the subject of this BLP. But there could be a wikilink for the daughter and/or wiki article for folks who are interested in learning more about her.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 17:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No (in the absence of any reliably sourced indication that he was involved in the matter). Inclusion of the conviction seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:BLP. In fact, inclusion of the full names and dates of birth of Thorton's children seem to violate BLP - in particular WP:BLPNAME, and for the murder conviction WP:BLP1E. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the names and birth dates of the children, because I believe their inclusion is not "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" and is a violation of WP:BLPNAME. I've left the manslaughter conviction there; I don't agree with its inclusion, but I don't want to edit-war while it is under discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * YES - this information has been in the article since it first happened and now this BashBrannigan guy comes around and starts cutting things out. Everytime you Google Thornton's name the info about his child's arrest and conviction comes up. See http://www.google.com/search?q=billy+bob+thornton&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=#q=billy+bob+thornton&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=nws&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=dd666da14abf88b3&biw=1819&bih=807   So if ALL of these legitimate news organizations think that this is important info, then maybe it should be here.  Again, its been here for years till that Bash Brannigan dude came in with his POV pushing. BANNED IMPERSONATOR 22:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. If one of the children had won a Nobel Prize I assume we'd mention it. A very brief mention of a cause of notoriety is fitting considering the length and breadth of the existing "Personal life" section.   Will Beback    talk    23:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment on BANNED IMPERSONATOR and Will Beback's contributions: If the daughter's conviction is notable then she should have her own article. (I'm sure Will Beback's hypothetical Nobel laureate child would - all of the others do.) If she had her own article, then a link to it would be appropriate. But she does not. (If you think she does deserve here own article, create one.) Mitch Ames (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The standard for having a standalone article is not the same as the dramatically lower standard for being mentioned in a relevant article. We mention several non-notable sources and two not-notable parents too. We say what the parents did. By the proposed standard, all of that information should be deleted, along with any other reference to individuals who don't have articles.   Will Beback    talk    03:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is true, but in the context of BLP I believe that there is a big difference between being "mentioned" and "was convicted of [a serious criminal offense]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also bear in mind that - quoting WP:BLP: "This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That she was convicted is beyond question - it's in many sources. It's not unfounded gossip. How is the fact that his daughter committed manslaughter less important than that one brother died of a heart attack or that another lives in California?   Will Beback    talk    03:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is not about the truth, it's about the nature of the information. Dying of a heart attack or living in California are not sensitive matters, a serious criminal offence is. If my brother died of a heart attack or lived in California I would not be embarrassed to say so in public. If my child committed aggravated manslaughter, I would be embarrassed to publicise the fact. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP does not require or endorse the omission of embarrassing information.    Will Beback    talk    04:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is true. However my comment of 03:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) was an answer to your question "How is ... manslaughter less important than ... a heart attack or ... lives in California?" BLP does not prohibit inclusion of embarrassing information, but it does (I believe) require a higher standard of relevance for inclusion of sensitive information, and (while it may be important to Thornton personally) I don't believe his daughter's conviction is sufficiently relevant to this article to meet the higher standard that BLP requires of sensitive information. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Should we also delete the name of Karl Childers, another living person who killed someone?   Will Beback    talk    03:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Karl Childers is not an article, but it is a redirect to an article about a film based on him. Would it be appropriate to create a redirect for Amanda Brumfield? If so, what to? An article about her father? Personally, I don't think such a redirect would be appropriate. The existence of Karl Childers but not Amanda Brumfield or Amanda Spence Brumfield is strong clue to their relative notability, and thus the mention of their names. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to keep arguing over it. I'll just repeat that the standard for inclusion in an existing article is just relevance, not notability.   Will Beback    talk    04:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, as per Will Beback. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This BashBrannigan dude has a well known history of slashing and cutting things from articles that he does not like. He contributes nothing.  He just runs around cutting things that do not fit into his POV.  That should be taken into account here, too. BANNED IMPERSONATOR 17:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above by Cintron is about the most offensive comment I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. It is blatantly insulting and misrepresents me. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The record speaks for itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BashBranniganBANNED IMPERSONATOR 01:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Direct criticisms against the arguments of other editors (e.g. here), not against editors themselves, and please avoid generalizations or accusations about personal behavior without clear and specific examples (i.e. diffs) of inappropriate or disruptive behavior. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, for now. The criterion we should use is "relevance"—specifically, whether reliable sources consider the fact to be relevant in the context of Thornton's life. It seems to me that this is something which we cannot judge, currently, since the conviction took place just two weeks ago. Although BANNED IMPERSONATOR notes correctly that any search for "Billy Bob Thornton" will bring up multiple news articles about the daughter's conviction, this is probably due to the recentism of the event; I've seen little indication that reliable sources mention the daughter's trial or conviction in other contexts, such as when discussing Thornton's work or life in general. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes per Will Beback. Khazar (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove - issue has nothing to do with the subject. If either she or the incident is notable then write an article for it, don't include it here by default. Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why delete the daughter but keep the brother and parents? Notability is the standard for standalone articles, not for single sentences in articles.   Will Beback    talk    03:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We can remove the conviction without removing the daughter. Eg:
 * The above comment ("We can remove the conviction without removing the daughter, Eg ....") was actually added by me, not Will Beback, but I forgot to sign it at the time. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No It is irrelevant to BBT as a person entirely.  We do not, for example, generally lists convictions of relatives in BLPs and this is no place to start doing so.  In the melange of an article on GWB, the "convictions" of his daughters are unmentioned, as is the case of the Al Gore son's DUI.  WBB has, in fact, opined on the latter IIRC.  Collect (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Me? What did I say about Al Gore III that's relevant here?   Will Beback    talk    03:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, he is evidently estranged from this daughter, and as far as I have been able to determine thus far, he has not commented on the incident, nor is there any coverage that demonstrates any connection between rather and daughter beyond the biological one. We have high standards for BLPs, and I see no value in including this information. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * comment - I do support the simple mention of the daughter, removing the details of her life that are unconnected to the subject of this article, as per will's Mitch's comment above. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've corrected Off2riorob's comment to reflect the actual author of the comment (that I think is being referred to) to (hopefully) avoid confusion. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed mention of the daughter's conviction while retaining mention of the daughter, per what appears to be the consensus of this discussion, and also replaced the source. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break
I just rolled back an edit that added back the info about the daughter's conviction, just a head's up. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Tribute Bands
I'm not from around here, but I was visiting parts in the South, and advertised Sling Blade Lawn Care, though I didn't actually have a landscape company, and if I did, it would be, "Sling Blade Lawn Care". In music, this is what I do... answer the question before it's asked, and know what to ask. Mystical interpretation is a refining process which exists in a bill of rights, upon which no one could scatter and tear. Benjamin Franklin inventions were never invented to save anyone. Thanks for condolences 75.204.165.28 (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Does this make sense to anyone? If the editor is simply talking about themselves, it should be removed. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)