Talk:Pete Doherty/Archive 2

Needed Improvements
Having archived the talk page, I figured it would be useful to decide what this page still needs. The article has been worked on by quite a few editors recently and is now looking a lot more encyclopaedic as well as being far more comprehensive. However, it is far from complete. I really feel this article could reach featured article status with more attention. Currently, the media's relationship with Pete means that a lot is reported without verifiable evidence. By keeping this article at its current standard and expanding it, this could be the 'Gold Standard' for information on Pete. As far as I can tell, the article now requires:


 * A suitable free picture, completely free if possible but may have to make do with fair use for now.
 * More on Pete's early life - children, prior relationships etc.
 * Standardise the language used throughout the article. i.e. Keep to using 'Pete' or 'Doherty', don't interchange.
 * Controversy section - I created this bulleted list, not sure its the correct format though. Its definately tidier than before, but I'm still not sure its quite right?

Any further suggestions would be appreciated. Super Ted 16:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed comment about Pete and Kate getting married, this is at the moment, merely tabloid gossip and not a credible source

GCSEs and A-levels
Pete only got 5 A*s, despite what other citations say. I believe the rest were grade A, but my memory's not perfect. I know that the results were reported in the local press at the time (as three of us got very good results) but I can't find an appropriate citation. If anyone has access to archives of the Bedworth Echo or Bedworth Evening Telegraph and looks through the summer of 1995 the details should be in there.

131.111.20.103 09:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Found a reference for A-levels. Lost detail regarding the subjects (English Lit, Economics, History and General Studies), but without more details on grades it might be clumsy to include them. I feel a bit guilty chipping away at his academic record...

131.111.20.103 11:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm unhappy with this sentence: "He was academically successful, achieving 5 grade A* and 6 grade A GCSEs, at Nicholas Chamberlaine Comprehensive School in Bedworth (although this has erroneously been reported as 11 grade A*s[2])..." There is no citation for the grades given.  It's unacceptable to ignore a legitimate citation and replace it with unsourced information with no discussion or reason.  I'm going to revert it in a few days if no information supporting the new grades or challenging the original citation is presented.  OneVeryBadMan 11:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am a primary source. Sadly, there aren't on-line archives for the newspapers the grades appeared in. The original citation is just plain inaccurate; I don't think it's particularly responsible to let it stand even if it is the only one we have to hand at the minute. 143.210.152.112 13:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1084726.ece states he gained "mostly" A*s, the other source being used to say he gained 11 A*s actually says 11 "top" grades, "top" could mean literally A*s or could mean just "very good grades".

University
People keep changing his university from Oxford to UCL. However, every reliable source I can find seems to say Oxford. OneVeryBadMan 22:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware its definately Oxford. Perhaps change back to Oxford and we can discuss on the talk page of any user who changes it to see where they are getting their information from. I'm guessing its just confusion on the part of Pete now living in London. Super Ted 13:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As in the archived discussion, I'm fairly certain it was in London. In the Biography written by Pete Welsh, Doherty describes the decision to attend university as "a ticket into London". UCL also referenced in this article: http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/music/features/article50875.ece --alex 14:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This BBC article states that he went to Oxford for a year to read English. I'm unsure as to why the 2 articles differ. Could he have attended both institutions at some point? Super Ted 17:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That Independent article says only that he was offered a place at the University of London, and that he never went because he was engaged to a Swedish girl who "wore a plastic crown." I think this may be an example of Doherty's occasional penchant for telling poetic tales about himself. I've certainly never heard of him working "full time as a grave-filler." OneVeryBadMan 10:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Think you're probably right there. That's the major obstacle with this article, even the primary sources aren't reliable! However, googling around it seems that the majority of reliable, verifiable sites state Oxford as the university that Pete attended. Super Ted 11:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Pete Doherty was offered a place at St Catharine's College, Oxford to read English Literature. However, he decided not to take up the offer and went to UCL instead. As has been said before, he dropped out of UCL after his first year. Am 100% sure that is right (there was some fairly vigorous discussion of Doherty and his links to the university in the Oxford student press a while back). 06:05, 8 April 2006


 * If that is true, please find a source to document it. The BBC is a good, reliable source, and we can't ignore it without evidence.  The only thing I can find in the Oxford student press is this article  listing him as an Oxford dropout. OneVeryBadMan 10:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well both answers.com and the Independent online, and other parts of the BBC website say that he was offered a place at Oxford but went to UCL. I happen to know he didn't go to Oxford because I had a conversation with one of the English tutors at St Catherine's about him. The college will have a record of it if you want to bother them; I frankly haven't got the time.

I did a full LexisNexis search of all news in all languages for the last five years. Many sources state merely that he "got into Oxford," but the Irish Times cites him as attending, then dropping out of Oxford after a year.

The Daily Express, April 1, 2006, claims he "enrolled at the University of London" but never completed his degree. The Coventry Evening Telegraph, July 11, 2005, claims, on the other hand, that he "won a place at the University of London to study English which he never took up." The Daily Telegraph, February 17, 2005, also claims (in a timeline which appears on the Lexis version but not on their website) that he "turned down [an] offer to study English literature at University of London." So does the Independent article. However, another Independent article disagrees.

To summarize, we can be fairly sure that he was offered places at both Oxford and the University of London. The Irish Times and the BBC claim he attended Oxford, and dropped out. The Independent claims that he attended UCL and dropped out, but in another article, they claim he never went at all, and they are supported in this by the Daily Telegraph. I e-mailed the student registries of the two universities, but they won't release any information for confidentiality reasons. I don't know what to make of all this. The problem with the article used to be a lack of verified, reliable sources. Now the problem is a surplus of reliable sources which all contradict each other. OneVeryBadMan 12:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "The Libertines: Bound Together" says "Peter made his escape to London to do English literature at University College London but abandoned his course a year into it". Given the authors close relatioinship with The Libertines, I would be tempted to accept their account as the most reliable. Trebor 21:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the most authoritative biography of the band, so I'll accept it over most of the newspaper claims. OneVeryBadMan 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, he definitely went to UCL, as it was there that he met Carl Barat.--Leowatkins 20:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The balance of evidence seems to favour UCL, but that's definitely not where he met Barat. Carl went to Brunel, where he became acquainted with Peter's sister, then met Peter through her. OneVeryBadMan 14:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And the plot thickens: this new article in the Sunday Times says that he was rejected by UCL and actually attended Queen Mary, University of London. It's getting ridiculous now. OneVeryBadMan 15:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Only just spotted that (so excuse the revert). I'm really not sure what to think. The fact that the Sunday Times article mentions UCL (and was written by someone who spent a month with Doherty) suggests it might have come straight from Doherty, but the band biography was also written by people who knew Doherty well. Your version seems to be a suitable compromise: while not as accurate as we would like, at least we're fairly certain it's true. Trebor 12:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just an idea, but maybe we could elaborate a little on the university confusion on the main page; mention the main contenders and and say something about the mythology that seems to have sprung up (I'm certain the Oxford drop-out claim, if not true, is an attempt to closer link him to Percy Bysshe and co.) It seems that that would be more factually accurate than trying to choose between them, when the evidence is as convoluted as it seems...
 * The problem is that there seems to be little confusion - reliable sources seem to firmly state different things (although I think Oxford has been discounted). I'm intrigued by the Oxford theory, but it would need sourcing. Trebor 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Outsider Queen Mary unexpectedly takes the prize. Paragraph 14 seems to provide pretty definitive evidence, from Mrs. Doherty. I'm pretty impressed that the BBC, the Independent, the Telegraph, Bound Together, and almost every other reliable source was wrong. OneVeryBadMan 11:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Bizarre stuff, but hopefully this should settle it. Trebor 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I dispute that he went to Queen Mary, known as QMW at the time, as that would have meant he was on my course and in my year at the time, and I don't recall seeing him around or hearing of him. Even if his attendance was poor, I would have known of him as I was into music and bands at the time and find it inconcievable that I wouldn't at least have been aware of him. Davidjsuk 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name
Peter Doherty (Pronounced "DoCK-er-ty")

Really? Or "DOE-er-ty"? Flapdragon 13:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On the documentaries I've seen, where he pronounces his own name in the third person, he always says it "DoCK-er-ty." The name is Irish in origin, and that is the Irish way of pronouncing it.  People are probably just confused by the Americanised pronunciation of Shannen Doherty. OneVeryBadMan 01:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * the Irish pronunciation is not "Dock-erty" (see below)

(Or perhaps "DOKH-er-ty" would be more the Irish way.) Fair enough, though if the "DOE-er-ty" pronunciation is common enough it should perhaps still get a mention. I don't feel competent to say as I don't spend much time discussing him! Flapdragon 11:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * it might be "common" but that's still not how he says his name!

See also the same article:

"Peter Doherty (Pronounced "Doh-her-ty")"

Wikipedia, where if you aren't sure, include both pieces of information! Isn't the standard for this IPA anyway? 24.181.29.106

It pronounced "Doh-her-ty" otherwise his name would be spelt Docherty, which it isn't.

Definately DoCk-er-ty, as that's the way he himself says it.

Both Dock and Doe pronunciations are incorrect. A more suitable phonetic spelling is "Dorherty". The r is virtually silent, but the sound of the first syllable is akin to the "Do" sound used in dot, not dote. However, this correct form can be quite tricky with an english accent (particularly southern). Pete himself uses the Dock form as i'm sure he finds it easier than the traditional/correct irish method.


 * People keep changing it. Lots of names are pronounced in a different way than their spelling.  He pronounces it Dock-erty.  That should really be the end of it.


 * The way it reads now implies that dock-erty is the correct pronunciation which it isn't. There's no hard c sound, nor is it "doe" as the yanks say. Jonathan Ross's entry doesn't include (pronounced woss) because that's how he says it.  If we can't agree, maybe the pronunciation bit should be removed.

Jonathan Ross has a speech impediment, and I doubt he seriously considers "Woss" correct. I appreciate your point about the linguistic subtlety of the Irish pronunciation. However, that sound is fairly unique to Irish, like the sound in Scots "Loch." Doherty isn't Irish. In English and American dialects, it becomes a hard c sound. I think "dock" is the best and most accurate we can be without using the arcane International Phonetic Alphabet, which won't help many people. However, it's such a magnet for bad "corrections" that I wouldn't object to removing it. OneVeryBadMan 16:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet again, someone changed it, this time to "Dohery," which is demonstrably wrong. So, given the lack of objection, I've removed it altogether. OneVeryBadMan 21:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC

It's just simply DOCK -erty you fools! End of. Bang Bang you're dead 01:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends if you're English, Scottish or Irish really but Pete Doherty himself pronounces it Dock-er-ty. As I'm Irish I say Doh-her-ty. It doesnt really matter!
 * I agree, it's obviously not Doe-herty, but neither is it supposed to be pronounced as strongly as doCK-erty, as I've seen most English-accented newsreaders etc say it. As someone above pointed out, it's rather like loch - I just don't think most here will actually ever manage to agree though.

Bala Chadha
I'm not really sure if this link should be here. I believe the site contains (or contained) some very unpleasant footage, including self-mutilation, and Doherty has made it clear he has had no involvement with the creation of the site, and does not endorse it. There's nothing of value to be seen there anyhow. What do you think?--Major Major 01:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree...it shouldn't be there, he has no involvement with it.

Sun Article Link
The link to the Sun article (pictures of him injecting a fan) is 404 already, only two days after the dateline. -- Mikeblas

What about this crap.... Bad Move pretty sick!

Siblings
How can he be the second child of three if he has three sisters?

And the listing style with his parents and siblings disturbs the flow of the article and I believe should be rephrased in proper English prose.


 * There's no source for the two sisters contribution, but I recall reading of a younger sister and an older in other sources, so the second of three sounds right. OneVeryBadMan 03:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

He has two sisters, one younger (Emily) and one older (Amy Jo).

Did The KLF Invent Pete Doherty
Should we include this? I know it's probably fake, but maybe in a rumours section? Help plz 21:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely not, in my opinion. That was nothing more than a silly joke that was posted on a few blogs.  I don't think anyone actually took it seriously and it had no impact, so it doesn't deserve any mention.  OneVeryBadMan 03:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
Why the hell is this a candidate for deletion?? I'll throw up a contestion notice but I think its a mistake or joke. Pete Doherty's a well know musician... Chris. 16 May 2006

Totally agree Chris, I just came accross a page on rude acronyms so if that is notable so is this!

Rough Trade
He wasn't "dropped" from his record label. His contract expired, which is another thing altogether. Also, this happened well before the syringe incident. I've made reference to them being unsigned under the Babyshambles section. OneVeryBadMan 17:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- dreadlady 18:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

frenchdogblues.com
I wouldn't consider frenchdogblues.com to be Pete's official website, it's just balachadda.com's new domain. This site is sometimes said to be a page he uses for his "creative output", which is really, really unlikely and farfetched. The people at the albionarks.com forum like to cite him whenever this topic comes up: ''Balachadda? I couldn't distance myself further from the wholeexploitative scene'' [so called craxploitation] It was allegedly set up by him and a "friend" of his, who is now making money by showcasing Pete's privacy. So, though there is no real evidence I'd say a whole community of fans encouraging others not to sing up there is enough reason not to consider this site being his. -- dreadlady 16:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Peter said something about the website at a show the other night, and Adam said that it's legitimate. People are saying that the reason is looks like Bala is because it's been made by the same designer.  I'm not sure.  However, it's still a paysite, and it's just a few days old, so it's probably worth waiting for clarification. OneVeryBadMan 20:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

FrenchDogBlues.com is legitimate and was set up as the result of Peter's direct request to the programmer. It is a site that unlike balachadha.com is completeley under Peter's control. It is also worth noting that balachadha.com was closed by Peter and Peter never posted there as he never felt he had control, where as he does post on FrenchDogBlues.com and has full control. There is also a lot of free material on the site. For example entire music demos and pictures.

www.babyshambles.com was Peter's personal website, which he posted on and whose members he accepted or declined. This is not to be confused with www.babyshambles.net, which is Babyshambles' official page, itself seperate to www.frenchdogblues.com, which seems to be the official site of Peter and Babyshambles. Joe Geshka 22:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
I deleted this section and moved the information on QPR and "All Quiet on the Western Avenue" back to Influences. The information on blood paintings is covered elsewhere, and the fact that he once wrote some letters to the NME expressing opinions about music is inane. It's my opinion that "Trivia" sections are unacademic and do not belong on Wikipedia. Any relevant material should be sourced and placed under an appropriate heading. OneVeryBadMan 19:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree - it's better. Trebor 21:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Pete finding Jesus
Is this really true? It doesn't sound right and the source sounds a bit dodgy ("a source told the Daily Star" see citation 30). Anyway, we all know Pete has barely a penny to his name anyway at the moment, so all in all, this story sounds a bit dodgy. Must be checked up on.


 * It's not true, and there was never any reliable source for it. The Daily Star quoting anonymous sources is not credible. OneVeryBadMan 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hexham?
Hate to be a pedant but shouldn't it be "Hexham, UK", not "Hexham, England", like the older edit?

No it shouldn't, English people consider their country to be England, Welsh people consider their country to be Wales, Scots consider their country to be Scotland. UK is a term used almost exclusively by outsiders.
 * What a complete load of nonsense. I'm Scottish, that's a nation - the country I come from is the UK. The only reason I support Hexham, England is because everybody knows where England is and what country it's in - just as American-related pages will use eg Santa Barbara, California. Northumberland, however, does not have the same level of popular familiarity outwith the UK. --Breadandcheese 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly encyclopedic is it? I'm Scottish but the country I live in is the UK. However this strange concept of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being seperare countries seems to be widespread on here and I don't care enought to change it.


 * In my opinion it is "Hexham, England". It is correct to say that England is part of the UK and if anyone didn't already know this they would find out by following the "England" link. The reason this practice is widespread (and, in my belief, correct) is that England, Wales and Scotland are nations within the UK state which relates to government, sovereignty and citizenship. Properly, a "country" is a geographical area, of which England, Scotland and Wales all are, as well as being in the island of Great Britain, which is also a geographical area. I would therefore argue that if you are "Scottish" the country you live in (or the country of your birth, your parentage or where you were brought up or immigrated to etc.) is Scotland. The articles Home Nations and Constituent country also elaborate on this for anyone who is confused by the semantics. Benson85 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

But Scotland ain't a country. I just think it would be better to have "town, country", rather than this whole england uk the world the universe thang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.46.15 (talk • contribs • WHOIS ) 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Scotland is every bit as much a country as England is you idiot! Get one geography lesson. What next? France isn't a country? Germany isn't a country? Some dafties here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.95.164 (talk • contribs • WHOIS ) 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, France and Germany are both countries. Scotland, Ireland, England and Northern Ireland are not countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.208.43 (talk • contribs • WHOIS ) 15:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You Sir need a map and a geography lesson. You are a TWAT and an ill informed one at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.72.90 (talk • contribs • WHOIS ) 15:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Additions and so on
Besides the fact that this page needs serious work, is there anyone out there who has a photograph of Pete taken by yourself for use on this page? It would be very helpful. --Bang Bang you're dead 00:36, 7 July 2006
 * What about | Andrew Kendall? His photographs are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike. I always thought the old one here was one of his... -- dreadlady 10:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well his are "share-alike" and can't be used unless he licenses them for free use. I've tried using those before but unfortunately they always get me for it. -- Bang Bang you're Dead 18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought the Wikipedia was share-alike (actually one can come over, take it, use it and share it alike, i.e. give it away to other as long as they do so as well). Extremely bureaucratically that is. His terms of use do explicitly allow the use on Wikipedia. It says "You have permission to upload any images to Wikipedia providing you credit and link back to me." -- dreadlady 20:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whilst that is true, he cannot simply allow it to be used on Wikipedia only. According to the license Wikipedia uses, anyone can take the content of Wikipedia and use it for any purpose, including commercial. i.e. I could make a collection of DVD's with the entire site on it, package it and sell it for a profit totally legally. However, if images such as this are allowed into pages, that would be illegal, as the author has denied commercial privileges. This is why images such as this are not permitted. Hope this clears things up. Super Ted 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank's for your explanation. This is going to be an annoying problem then. We could ask Andrew Kendall if he would be so kind as to license one of his photos under a different license. -- dreadlady 11:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's very annoying. I uploaded a few Kendall images, and I was really baffled when they were deleted.  There are lots of pictures available on forums, taken by fans who would likely be happy to release the rights, but I have yet to find a really good-quality one. OneVeryBadMan 14:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did Andrew ever email you back? Super Ted 21:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No answer so far. -- dreadlady 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a picture of him at school- pretty average quality as it's a scan of a photo. It's not suitable for the main picture, but might it be worthy of inclusion in the body of the article?143.210.152.112 14:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lust of the Libertines
I'm deleting this sentence again: Indeed, the name The Libertines is taken from the phrase "Lusts of the Libertines"... from the Marquis de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom, the ideals of which Doherty was particularly influenced by. It is totally unsourced, and I'm sure it's wrong for the following reasons: 1) I have never heard it before, and a google search for the title "Lusts of the Libertines" and Doherty reveals 0 matches. 2) I cannot perceive any way in which Doherty was influenced by the ideals of a book which consists of "the story of four wealthy men who enslaved 24 mostly teenaged victims and proceeded to torture them with various sexual perversions, while listening to stories told by old prostitutes." 3) The word "libertine" has a variety of uses, and was adopted by the band in self-explanatory reference to their ideals of freedom and Arcadian life without rules, not to signify violent sexual torture. The lyrics of the song called "Lust of the Libertines" have nothing to do with de Sade, and refer to the "lust for fame."
 * It says the name came from their in The Libertines: Bound Together, although it makes no reference as to whether Doherty was especiallly influenced by the work. Trebor 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merely saying the name "came from there" is a pretty minor claim on its own. Perhaps they saw it there and liked it, but as a single word instead of the whole title, I don't think it's syntactically accurate to say they were named after the phrase. Beyond that, 'named after' suggests something much more than source, implying some tribute or honour, and there's no evidence of that in their work. Libertine is a pretty well-known word. It's like buying a can of baked beans from Tesco: the source is unimportant, because it was a generic term that they could have found anywhere, even if they just happened to find it there.  On that basis, I believe a mention in the article would be misleading. OneVeryBadMan 14:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Quote from Bound Together: "[...] eventually the three of them settled on The Libertines, after Marquis de Sade's The Lust of The Libertines [...]". It says explicitly that they named themselves after the book (and I'd say it's a trustworthy source). You can't decide it's a "a pretty minor claim" just because it doesn't provide any further explanation.
 * However, I totally with you on the concern of distraction. -- dreadlady 18:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section
I put back in the 21 July addition where Doherty cancelled a professional engagement to enter drug rehabilitation (again). If backing out of gigs because he is still hooked on drugs isn't controversial (making many newspapers in the United States, where neither the Libertines nor he is well-known) then many of the "Controversy" sections will need to be deleted. If it's not controversial, then what is? --DavidShankBone 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree on the general noteworthiness of Peter cancelling a gig. The only unusual aspect of 21 July is that it was announced in advance, instead of the usual style, when he just doesn't show up.  He misses at least a third of his gigs without notice, so it would be a massive and unhelpful chunk of the article if we tried to include them (I've personally been to six gigs so far this year that didn't happen).  It's only worth mentioning in connection to something significant, like when a riot resulted at the Astoria.  However, I do think the latest attempt at rehab deserves inclusion.  OneVeryBadMan 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is the point of the controversy - he cancelled the gig in order to go back into rehab. I agree, that every cancelled gig would not be worthy of inclusion.  But this gig was unique in two regards:  1.  Pete did it to go back into rehab; and 2. this particular gig made headlines because Bob Geldof banned his daughter Peaches Geldof from attending because of Doherty's presence (http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news?id=19866).  I stick by its worthiness of inclusion.

Rehab is the only part worth mentioning in that section, not the cancellation of a gig well in advance, which is the subject of the current entry. The well-wishes of a club promoter who's probably never met Pete are not worth quoting. Bob Geldof's parenting decisions are pure gossip and completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article on Peter, especially when the report quotes anonymous sources and contains numerous factual errors (e.g., her DJ group is called the Trash Pussies, not Trash Puppies .)

Also, your source doesn't work. I respect your opinion and I won't revert it myself, but I would like to see a clearer consensus develop about the type of major controversies relevant to the encyclopedia entry, as opposed to blog-style updates about tv appearances and plain gossip. OneVeryBadMan 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you on all fronts - I make no mention of the Peaches Geldof bit in there for the gossip factor. I think the way it reads now shows it's worthy of inclusion, since it covers all the "July Controversies" that made the major papers.  I only think the cancelled gig is worth remarking upon because of the drug rehab angle; otherwise I would not have included it.  I fixed the source and added another - stupid San Francisco Chronicle moves their articles around, making citation to them completely worthless.  I won't make the same mistake twice.


 * I would also like to see a consensus develop about which controversies are worthy of inclusion. I do feel this is one of them.  A third reason I give is that it is a major international festival, and not just a local gig.  Thanks for the well-thought notes.  --DavidShankBone 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'Controversy' section is bloated and contains far too much trivia. It is also on the verge of becoming a chronicle of Doherty's every move. I would think replacing it with a non-bulleted summary would help.

I took off the bits abotu Pete being scum. That's inappropriate.

You are pathetic, if you don't like him or his music, stay away from anything to do with him,including wikipedia pages.

I have deleted the vandalism that the above post responds to. I'm new to this so please tell me if I'm wrong to do that. However, it was not related to the discussion pages and merely hindered the positive handling of the article. Maf88 12:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Second Secret 'Love Child'
I removed the reference to this in the article. The only source is femalefirst.com, and I've never seen it mentioned elsewhere. Doherty is known to make things up and spread disinformation when talking to the press, so this needs to be better supported than one article by a dubious source. Other interviews with him and his mother consistently mention only one child. OneVeryBadMan 19:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

chinese
is he part chinese at all? i ran his face on myheritage and came up with some oriental matches

- I know he's 1/4 irish and his grandfather is half russian and half french, i remember reading it somewhere - No, he's not Chinese. British with Irish heritage.

Vandalism
Can we get some kind of edit block on this page? there is so much vandalism on this page Jonomacdrones 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Bisexual
Pete Doherty is bisexual and was once a male prostitute, why is this not mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.84.209 (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It IS mentioned in this article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Doherty#Controversies_and_legal_troubles) Twoshirou 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section, again
I do not think that this warrants an entire separate page of trivia about every arrest and "controversial" action. A subsection should be created in the main page, with a brief (probably even much more brief that what I have been writing) summary of Doherty's arrests and trips to rehab. No more than that is needed, and a merge is certainly warranted. Ckessler 18:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that you have just relayed much of the separate page onto the main Pete Doherty page. The separate page is useful because you can breifly scan and see what Pete has been up to throughout the year, but continuous prose on the main Pete Doherty page does not make for compelling reading, and is still effectively acting as a commentary of Pete's life. The separate page was made to STOP this happening. On the main Pete Doherty stage about his controversies only a few sentences is needed to perhaps explain how controversial a character Pete is, then a few examples of how he is has been involved in fights and drug incidents - BUT NOT a running commentary because it is boring. Rock_Rose 20:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Who says that it makes compelling reading either way? Why do we need a page dedicated to the minute details of Doherty's behavior? In order to warrant a page of it's own, the information needs to be noteworthy, and that is up for debate, as far as I'm concerned. Ckessler 19:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally feel that it warrants its own page. The events were notable enough to be reported on by reputable news services and I think the page is useful as a complete record of Doherty's involvement in controversial events. It depends how you class 'minute' but arrests and court appearances would almost certainly get into most biographical articles on people; just because these things happen to Doherty more doesn't mean we should exclude them. How much, and which bits, go into the main article is more up for debate but I think a more complete record of Doherty's controversies should remain somewhere on WP. Trebor 10:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your feeling isn't criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please take a look at WP:N, especially the "Notability is generally permanent" section, and point 6 at WP:NOT. Antgel 02:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Pete Doherty? Is Michael Jackson deserving of a page devoted only to his legal troubles? Or Tommy Lee? Or Robert Downey Jr? Why do these celebs merely have a segment of their main biography page devoted to their legal troubles, yet not Doherty? I'm have no opinion about Doherty either way, but this page should follow the example of other celeb pages. One page, with a brief summary. 02:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Um...Michael_Jackson_controversies ;) But my response would be that Doherty is (far) more famous for his constant appearance in the tabloids than his music. It is probably the reason most people heard of him in the first place. The Robert Downey Jr page appears to state all his involvements with drugs and the law in the main text and is still quite small. The Tommy Lee page isn't great but I don't know much about him anyway. With Michael Jackson, there is too much information to fit on one page so they made separate ones and summarised it in the main article.Trebor 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone hum any of his tunes?
 * Yes. Trebor 22:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If he's more famous for his run-ins with the law, then why not make that the main focus of the Pete Doherty page, instead of creating a seperate page? Pete Doherty is certainly no Michael Jackson. Ckessler 21:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It ought not to be the main focus of the article because it is too bulky and the list of individual arrests does not provide a useful or readable introduction to people looking for information on the man. However it does deserve preservation on a separate page because it is a valuable record, unique on the internet, which provides the only comprehensive record of his arrests and legal proceedings in one place, each of which are cited and notable enough to be reported by reputable media.  OneVeryBadMan 11:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The last remark in regards to the arrest in January quotes a media source stating that he was 'released without charge' while this is technically correct it is a tad misleading as it gives the impression that his release was the end of the matter. It should say that he was 'released on police bail' pending further investigation.


 * I can't find any reports that speak of bail and further investigations. All media reports state that PD has been released without charge and that the police will take no further action against him. Can you please provide some evidence? C777 13:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Appearance and quote from Friday Night With Jonathon Ross, Jun 2007 I've adjusted the bit about being arrested to force him to give an autograph. I've just watched the show and that's not what he said. While he was mentioning that he was once arrested by a policeman with a "Pete Doherty is innocent" badge Jonathan asked if he'd ever been asked for an autograph while being arrested. He said yes and then demonstrated himself being pinned down by a policeman with a Birmingham accent who says something along the lines of "After this, would you mind giving me an autograph for my son" There was no indication of being forced to give an autograph, or being arrested just so he would/could give an autograph. Also there was no mention of it being the policeman who wore the "PD is innocent" badge (the reference for the incident leads to a site that says a policeman with a "PD is innocent" badge arrested him to force him to give an autograph. Complete rubbish, that's not what he said at all. He didn't say he was arrested just to get the autograph. He didn't say he was forced and he didn't indicate one way or the other whether it was the policeman with the "PD is innocent" badge or not)

Orientation
Is he bisexual? He acts like it. 80.43.74.145 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. But no, one cannot act bisexual. Just this week, he talked more about how he was a male prostitute.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 'He acts like it'. Um, how can you 'act' bisexual??Nukleoptra 18:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Act" can be interchangable with "behave", and you can most certainly engage in bisexual behavior. -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl Barat Reunion
we need a track listing for the reunion at hackney empire

The reunited Libertines played:

'What A Waster'

'Death On The Stairs'

'The Good Old Days'

'What Katie Did'

'Dilly Boys'

'Seven Deadly Sins'

'France'

'Tell The King'

'Don't Look Back Into The Sun'

'Dream A Little Dream Of Me'

'Time For Heroes'

'Albion'

'The Delaney'

Kate Moss engagement
I'm surprised no one has mentioned or described his relationship with Kate Moss, isn't that in the slightest bit worth mentioning apart from half a line (no pun intended) on a "tumultuous relationship"? I've added the fact that they announced their engagement, but I have a feeling this will be reverted for some reason.

Catholic upbringing
merits mention in his 'early life'. Source: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1381347,00.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.143.254.169 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC). 27 May 2007. I removed a unecessary remark originally on the bottom of this post. If anyone objects let me know.

Fair use rationale for Image:TheBlindingEP.jpg
Image:TheBlindingEP.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

HE IS ENGAGED
to romanian/canadian model irina lazareanu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.96.106 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a rumor afaik. Twoshirou 23:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter not Pete
As far as I know he's been credited as "Peter Doherty" on every release with The Libertines, Wolfman and Babyshambles as well as The Books Of Albion.

At the 2004 session for XFM, Peter lightheartedly berates the NME for always referring to him as Pete, not Peter, which he seems to be suggesting he prefers. Joe Geshka 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Irish Catholic Parents?
Doherty wasn't born to Irish Catholic parents. This is a complete untruth - only his grandfather on his Dads side is Irish. This was confirmed by his mother on This Morning - I think she was promoting her book at the time. I would edit this myself, but the page has been protected for a long period of time. Anyone care to remove this false claim?
 * I've removed the claim. Even if it were true, the statement would have to be sourced to be present in the article. Kariteh 11:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * it's absolutely true he had a Catholic upbringing. Check this article from the Guardian:   Good grief, it's almost impossible to add this to his bio, despite the insight such info brings.  It's almost like his biography's being carefully managed to include/exclude whatever details fit with a manufactured image of him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.231.225 (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:3440133m.jpg
Image:3440133m.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

New Heroin video in the "SUN"?
Some nice documentation here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article430366.ece%3FVideo%3DGoodness

Pete injects Heroin and there is evidence that it occured very short time after the MTV Awards. This might affect his probation sentence and court ruling.

Anyone mind to add it? He is getting married to a lady named Shauna Magner this December

"Controversies" article
I have blanked and redirected the separate "Pete Doherty's controversies" article here. It is clearly tabloid sensationalism and undue weight to have a 27-kilobyte listing of every single time Mr. Doherty has ever been in the tabloids. Please merge back any relevant content here, so that a balanced and fair biography can be written. His run-ins with the law and drug abuse are clearly encyclopedic and important, but they do not belong in an entirely separate article. FCYTravis (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This should be discussed, that list was created over a year ago and you are not the first that wants to merge the articles. I have reverted you and created the discussion. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the biographies of living persons policy and the policy on article neutrality. Pay particular attention to these passages:
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
 * An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.
 * By creating a 27-kilobyte (very nearly as long as the biography itself) "article" which is nothing more than a compendium of every time this person has ever been mentioned in a tabloid, we are placing undue weight on that aspect of his life. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scandal sheet. Mr. Doherty's run-ins with the law and drug abuse should be documented, but we do not need an excruciatingly detailed timeline of this man's legal and moral struggles. FCYTravis (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read the policies thank you very much, have you taken a look at any other "celebrity" that has had problems with the law? Take a look at Kiefer Sutherland, Kate Moss, Paris Hilton and the FA Aaron Sorkin; all of these articles mention absoloutely every time these people have had problems with the law or drugs and has been made public. It so happens that Doherty has had too many of these, alas it's impossible to fit all of them in this article. By the way, none of the things mentioned in that list is gossip or rumors, they are all facts: he WAS arrested, he WENT to trail, pictures of him taking heroind DID cause controversy, etc.-Yamanbaiia (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. In each case, the articles cover far more about the person's life and work than about every single time they were ever caught doing something wrong. By having a "controversies" (which really isn't a proper name anyway - what's "controversial" about it? he took drugs - how is that "controversial?" It's titillating, it's illegal, but what controversy does it create? there's no controversy that he did take drugs.) page which is nearly as long as the entire rest of the biography, we are placing massive undue weight on that part of his life. Mr. Doherty is not more famous for being arrested for drugs than he is for being a singer, and yet we have 27k on how he's been arrested and 6.6k on his singing career. Do you not plainly see how this is grossly disproportionate? FCYTravis (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing more to say about his life, he was born there, he studied over there and he made those albums. The end. It's not a thing of size here, but of content, we can't do anything if they have a bigger "controversy" section than a "biography" or "humanitarian work" section. If Angelina Jolie went on a humanitarian work rampage doing important appearences and contributions to some community every week for the next 3 years, will she not end up having her own "Anjelina Jolie's humanitarian work" article? Yes she would, and by having a NPOV we should mention ALL the bad things as we mention ALL the good things.
 * Now, if you include this list in the article it will become disproportionate because most of the article will be about Doherty's controversies (and they are controversies, or does he not appear and is discussed about in a negative way everywhere each time he is arrested or is photographed doing drugs? controversy?)
 * If you want so much to get rid of that list you should at least write a section that really honours the list, because it is not fair for you to blank like that months of work and accurate sourcing, and then just add a citation needed tag to that weasely sentence in this article that pretty much says "He was arrested a bunch of times, he takes drugs".
 * Help construct, not deconstruct. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy to help construct a section which encyclopedically and contextually discusses Doherty's issues with drug abuse and other legal violations. That is why I did not delete the controversies article, but only blanked it/redirected it, so that material from it can be merged into the new section.
 * But we're not simply going to cut and paste the entire list.
 * NPOV does not require that we "mention all the bad things." NPOV requires that we address his life in a comprehensive, contextual and balanced manner. That certainly means discussing his arrests, bouts with drug addiction and the way in which his drug abuse has affected his performances and career. What it does not mean is creating a detailed "rap sheet" of everything which ever got him in the tabloids. FCYTravis (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Before blanking and removing links to articles, get support for it. Otherwise, such removal of content is essentially vandalism. I have restored the link and the other article's content. Kirkburn (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, sir, it's not vandalism. The article is patently unacceptable per our content guidelines and policies relating to living persons. We don't create separate articles compiling every single thing a person ever did which wound up in the tabloids. Please review our policy on undue weight and our policy on articles relating to living persons. FCYTravis (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is crazy - you have blanked Pete Doherty's controversies, and only two lines are left on this article. Much of his news coverage is not about his music, but about his "antics". I do agree that other article was too long, but removing it entirely without any moving of content is mad. Edit: reviewing the stuff said above, I think I was too hasty in how I reacted. I still think it silly that now we are left with almost no information on what most people know Doherty for, and can only rely on the possibility of people going through the other article and reconstructing it. The controversies article was cited, and isn't the removal of cited information a bad thing? I also thought that discussion was encouraged before making changes. Kirkburn (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Btw, as a quick addendum, I don't think anyone in the UK would agree it broke NPOV - Doherty is now mainly known for his controversies, not his music. The huge length of the (cited) controversies article showed that. Even with the tabloidy stuff removed (which I think should have been the first resort), but it would still leave a big list. Were they not in a separate article due to the length, not content? Kirkburn (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well now that you mention it, I'm in the UK and I think it definitely broke NPOV. There are many musicians who are well known for drug taking, one that springs to mind is Keith Richards, I don't see any separate articles listing any of his titilating misdemeanours? Sue Wallace (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to the same extent in the public eye, but that may be a reflection of the changing times and media. I'm not saying the other article was correct to stay in its entirety, but that the tabloid stuff should have been discussed and removed first, and then the article appraised for whether it should be a separate article. The controversies were all sourced from what I could tell, and, being in a separate article, didn't make Pete Doherty article itself break NPOV. Currently we have the odd situation where two sentences are supposed to summarize what was a 20kb-plus article. Kirkburn (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, MAYBE the list should be removed, but before let's discuss and construct a good section that could be suitable for this article, not just remove it throw us some policies and refuse to discuss. About Richards, he was arrested mostly in the 70s according to that article, pretty impossible to source...again, if Richards was arrested every frigging month for the next 3 years, would he not end up with a separate article instead of a disproportionate "controversy" section in his article? And there is no video/pictures of him injecting that have caused controversy, are there?-Yamanbaiia (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Just because something is appears in the newspapers or internet, doesn't mean we should automatically add it to an article, the information should should be notable in its own right. It is up to us to be selective and create a quality, balanced article, not create a long list of separate short sentences virtually cut and pasted from the tabloids that highlight a well known persons misdeeds in chronological order. Biographies of living people are subject to strict criteria. Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia".–Jimmy Wales Sue Wallace (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, and I do not dispute that. However, Pete Doherty is notable for those misdeeds, especially the number of them. The controversies article needed an overhaul and a lot of cutting down, but complete removal seems extreme. Kirkburn (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think it was extreme, in fact I'm suprised it stayed as long as it did to be honest. Sue Wallace (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With removing the whole list as abruptly as that dude did, we are intentionally leaving out negative information (again, not gossip, not rumors but facts) outside. If i was searching for information about "Pete doherty' s problems with the law/drug" (because it has it's own relevancy now) i would come to wikipedia and found a two line section with a fact tag that says nothing. Useful. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I would question whether sources such as the Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror, The Sun, and The Daily Star, and various internet "news" sites were 100% reliable. Also, if negative info does need to be added it should be integrated properly into the article, not listed like a trivia section and should not unduly balance the article.  Is Doherty a musician who has a drug problem, or a drug addict who happens to be a musician?   Think about it.  Sue Wallace (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"100% reliable" is not a reasonable criteria. However, though it pains me to say it, the Mail is "reliable" and the Sun and Mirror to a lesser extent. He's a musician primarily known for his run-ins with the law and his relationship with Kate Moss ... as said in the article introduction. Whether or not it is negative info, it belongs in the article. How could it unbalance the article when it wasn't even on this article, but another page? The controversies page needed a cleanout of the minor stuff and then merging to here, not removal. Most editors will not see this section, and will not find the controversies article in order to add information back. So essentially, I completely agree the controversies article was in a bad state, but it needed tagging for improvement, not wiping. When it was wiped, no discussion actually occurred here until after the fact. Kirkburn (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? I think you should check how many times The Daily Mail has been sued for libel,, and I'm not even gonna go into the Mirror's. Sue Wallace (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You said How could it unbalance the article when it wasn't even on this article, but another page? Can you not see that creating a whole additional article just to list someones misdemeanours is completely and grossly unfair and biased? Sue Wallace (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the point of a controversies article if it's not allowed to contain controversy? I have not said that all the information in that article was valid, but a pretty large proportion of it was, and was notable. To be honest, the main problem I had with this is that no concerns were raised on talk pages for people to help deal with it (and a talk page not linked from here doesn't exactly count) before resorting to a complete wipe. Kirkburn (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article
Just read this article through for the first time. It's interesting and reads well. Well done, all. My only quibble might be whether the setlist of the reunion show is really necessary. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Doherty prostitution
I haven't read the biography, but the source in the article uses the word "gay" and does not mention a female clientele. Until such a claim is sourced, I don't think you have grounds to keep opposing the descriptive word. -- AvatarMN (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, i think that until you have found a source that says that he only had sex with men you should stop adding the word. Male prostitution goes both ways, i'm pretty sure that he didn't say no when a woman wanted to hire him. I asked a friend that has the book but he doesn't remember if it said that he only did men, he'll let me know in a while. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's like saying he couldn't be called a rock singer unless he'd said he never sang jazz. Just because he wouldn't have turned women down doesn't mean any ever solicited him.  The source uses the word gay, and you're speculating based on what he didn't say rather than what he said, and using that to go against the source.  Plus, you outrageously called the word vandalism, which tells me what your real problem is.  -- AvatarMN (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * whaaa? are you accusing me of homophobia? dude, you couldn't be more far off. I use Twinkle and the rollback/rollback vandalism buttons are pretty close, sometimes i don't really pay attention to which button i use. Sorry about that, you shouldn't go around making accusations though. And again, "gay" = only men, nothing = both ways (see Male prostitution). If you really, really want to add the word gay, then rewrite the sentence, maybe something like "...worked as a drug dealer and a prostitute, engaging in both homosexual and heterosexual activity"... I don't know, this sounds wierd. I could be wrong, take this to the article's talk page so we can have some other opinions. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I see people calling edits with homosexual topics "vandalism" all of the time, so seeing my clearly good faith edit (sourced and everything for god's sake) marked "identified as vandalism" really pissed me off. Glad to know you're not a homophobe, but you're still really, really wrong.  There hasn't been "nothing" said about his clients.  The source details him speaking about them, and only about male ones.  If there's a source for him having female clients, then you'd have a case.  I'm not saying there isn't a source and that he didn't have female clients, I don't know that, but the source uses the word "gay" and quotes him talking about male clients and not female ones, so I maintain you've got no grounds whatsoever to oppose me on this.  -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved to article's talk page


 * Well, for one I have to agree with AvatarMN, at least in the source Doherty refers to his clients only as "old queens" which implies that he was (mainly) engaged in homosexual activity. However, I don't think the article will be more accurate just because we add the word gay respectively less accurate if we won't. Therefore we might just leave it out and spare us long discussions.Twoshirou (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem with wiki. Peter is taking the piss. It's a joke, it didn't happen. He admitted it in an NME interview in 2002. You lot are fucking stupid for believing him.86.134.78.8 (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, in 2002 he said that he'll make this joke in 2005? You're the fucking stupid one... Send at least a link to a source if you claim something like this. Twoshirou (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wins Poetry Competition at 16
I dispute this. Paul Dufour, aka Mr Razzcocks told me he won the poetry thing after he had moved to London, which would mean 1997 at the very earliest (making him 18). I actually believe he won the Russia thing through his work with a poetry group he was part of around 1999/2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.78.151 (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Any proofs?Twoshirou (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

which drugs?
Neither the lede nor the drug abuse sections mention which drugs this dude is supposedly abusing. There's a big difference between occasionally smoking marijuana and injecting heroin into your eyeballs; a little info, please. скоморохъ 06:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * heroin. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

HE HAS GOT A SON
Why didn't you mention that he's got a son with Lydia Slater?

"She first met Doherty (who co-wrote 'Hooligans on E') when Kill City supported the Libertines on tour in 2002. 'He got under my skin. I knew it was a bad idea. We were ultimately friends; we tried embarking on a relationship but it wasn't meant to be.' The pregnancy was an accident. 'I was careless and it happened. I couldn't get rid of it, I didn't want to, even though there were a million reasons not to have it. I thought, 'I'm going to get it in the neck for this but I don't care'. Doherty has repeatedly bewailed the fact that he doesn't see enough of his son, but Lisa is firm that his current drug problems make it impossible."

Source: http://www.poptones.co.uk/bands/killcity/press/press_eveningstandard.htm

There are many more sources.

Bye.

––85.179.0.93 (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The woman he has a child with is called Lisa Moorish and it is mentioned, see Pete Doherty. C777 (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That article, even the extract you gave, mentions LISA, not Lydia. Pullshapes (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The user only got the name wrong, the article he quoted and linked is about Lisa Moorish. C777 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)