Talk:Pete Doherty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sources and referencing

This article appears to contain a huge amount of material and information which is not verifiable according to the guidelines set out by wikipedia. I think this article needs some sort of cleanup/sift through to remove all information which isn't referenced accurately. I'll happily take on this task when I have sufficient time (may not be for a few weeks), unless there are any objections? At present much of this article reads more like an internet forum than an encyclopedia article. Super Ted 13:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now extended the biography considerably and implemented a referencing system. It would be useful if any new additional material added is referenced and if assistance could be provided referencing existing material that is currently unreferenced that would be great. Super Ted 17:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup?

This is a good article - clearly written by someone who knows a fair bit about Doherty - but the tone is not quite right for an encyclopedia entry. It's a bit adulatory (which is fine - nothing wrong with enthusiasm!), but it would be more credible if it was more objective. Also, some discussion of recent press coverage of Doherty's relationship with Kate Moss, and his ongoing drug problems, would be interesting. Rayray 16:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

agreed. there's lots of stuff that should stay but it needs to be structured better. it could use some organizing, and maybe a rewrite in some areas.

however, there are also things that are far too trivial. some of this reads like a tabloid, and whoever wrote "arrests and controversy" probably drew inspiration from the tabloids. it needs to be cleaned up. Soulchild 9:52, 4 Mar 2006 (UTC)

How about making the Controversy and Arrests section into some form of table or at least some form of organised layout? If not a lot of the events need to be rewritten to make more grammatical sense. I've already changed one but felt I should maybe get a group consensus before embarking on the rest. Any objections? Super Ted 12:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I split up arrests and controversy and tried to re-write the arrests section so that it was slightly more narrative and less of a cumbersome list. I also added skeleton sections on his time in Babyshambles and the Libertines. The arrest section still needs work, though. Should we list all of them or not? I appreciate the need for a comprehensive list somewhere, but I think it ruins this particular article and should be drastically pruned. OneVeryBadMan 07:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job! Thanks for helping out. I've just split the arrests and controversy sections you created into the years the dates fell under. I agree that it still needs pruning drastically. Perhaps a seperate article could exist for all his arrests etc, not sure if thats in keeping with the ideals of wikipedia though :S What do you think? Super Ted 15:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

NB: Just had another look at the article and reformatted the sections. Think it looks alright now actually. Any comments? Super Ted 20:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed that reformatting can make such a difference. It's dramatically better. OneVeryBadMan 03:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. It's amazing what some ppl can do in 3 weeks. Nice... feel kinda bad for not helping out; i posted the cleanup tag and the promptly forgot about it. whoops. Soulchild 10:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers buddy, don't worry not being around. Wouldn't mind some help with bulking the article up a bit now tho. Eventually, I'd love to see it reach Featured Article status but that could be a long way off yet. Think we could do with adding more on his prior relationships. Just realised there are some glaring holes in his biography, such as his child, his prior relationships etc. There's not so much information around on the net about that kinda thing I don't think, but I'll do my best. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Any other suggestions? Super Ted 13:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've started a Personal Life section for his child and one of his prior relationship. He may have had more that I don't know of; sifting through mounds and mounds of tabloids to find proper information can get a bit dreary after awhile. That said, there isn't much, so if anything knows anything more then go ahead. As for other suggestions, I suppose we could add something about his intellect. The Rolling Stone article touches on this, and I'd add it on but unfortunately I've wandered back onto this page in the middle of an exam period so at the moment I have to prioritise. If someone else could do it I'd be grateful. Soulchild 22:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Albion Fan Fiction

The idiot that deleted the link to the Albion Fan fic should stop being such a prude twat! That was a useful link and im upset its gone!

-- I deleted the link. It holds absolutely no scholarly informational value to either Pete Doherty, Carl Barat, nor any other member of the Libertines. One could even go so far as to say it highly misrepresents them in the context of WikiPedia. Let's keep fan fiction and fangirlism out of this, folks.

What is the deal with libel?

How do the ridiculous British libel laws apply to Wikipedia? As an American, I don't feel particularly compelled to restepc them. In any event, pop stars and other irritations are common fodder for gossip columnists and whoever else and I don't think we ought to worry about libel, just accuracy or veracity or whatever you want to call it. Kate Moss has unbelievably horrible taste in men, and why does a guy so scrawny and tiny get into fistfights? It's not rational. Is there a Wikipedia standard on how much blathering and speculation we should include about pop stars and models and famous goons? I don't suppose we have a shortage of space.

Typical bloody American.

Yeah, what the fuck are you wittering on about? If we did have a shortage of space, you're mindless, boring ramblings would would the first to go. You know this is a universal site? Just because you don't respect (or more likely understand) British laws doesn't mean they shouldn't be on here. Bloody yank, (yerr, mutter mutter) with yer hamburgers and yer sidewalks and yer inflexible, overrated constitutions and yer sneakers. And who, I ask you, WHO re-writes Fawlty Towers with Basil as a woman?--Crestville 13:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Homo-erotic relationship with Carl Barat

Unfortunately, interesting as the point is, saying that Barat and Doherty's relationship is "widely rumoured" to be "homerotic" is still probably libellous. Where has this rumour been printed? All I can find online is an interview in which they *deny* any homosexual overtones to their relationship. Perhaps it might be better to cite examples (ideally specific instances!) - kissing, microphone sharing - as described later in the article? Otherwise, the rumours are just a rumour, and not the stuff encyclopedias are made of. I don't mean to be nitpicking, but this is worth getting right. Rayray 28 June 2005 08:17 (UTC)

This is interesting material (ditto the rentboy reference) but, in my opinion, needs to be supported with citations (official band biogs, press clippings, etc.) or else it might possibly be libellous. Rayray 12:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neither Pete Doherty or Carl Barat are bisexual/homosexual. I've followed the band since 2002 and the relationship has only ever been a friendship, albeit a strong one. There should not be a link to "bisexual musicians" at the bottom of this page as Pete Doherty is not bisexual, and nor is Carl Barat, both being straight. I can guarantee this.

Doherty is openly bisexual. [1]

That rent boy thing was made up in his first ever NME interview, which he later admitted.

-- Peter is hardly a source of accuracy himself. If one reads several of his interviews, he often contradicts himself, changes his story, and outright lies.

---

On one of his interviews, when asked if he had "ever snogged Carl" he replied "only when he is asleep." Yes, this isn't indicative of anything, but still I felt like mentioning it. --80.195.253.219 13:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

pete is bi...he and carl would be a cute couple <3

Possible copy vio

from

http://www.pete-doherty.net/

Jackliddle 23:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so, at least not in the current version. I think the earliest version of this article was largely copied from a single interview, and the website you mention above, but I rewrote and restructured the current edit. Happy to address this issue, though, if you can point out the particular areas of concern. Thanks. Rayray 09:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, a lot of stuff looks like it came straight off the Bio page, about his early life and his good grades, the "two year old son", maybe a citation link to the bio page for that info would suffice? I also agree that there has been a great number of changes since then, although the structure remains similar -- this page needs a better structure and more on his work with The Libertines (much more then just two sentences). I'd reccomend chapter listings but it's hard to disconnect say "The Libertines" and "substance abuse". --Poorpete 14:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about more info on the Libertines here - the linked Libertines page ought to cover most of the information about the band, I think (although I don't feel strongly about it). I'm not sure the content of a biography, unless it contains substantial new research (like the recent Dirk Bogarde book) can be copyrighted, presuming that it's based on fact. Also, most of the information in the original version of this article crops up in similar form in several sources - the Independent interview, for example, which unfortunately now seems to have disappeared. I'm guessing both the pete-doherty.net article and the independent interview are partly based on Doherty's official press biography. As for the structure, it probably could do with more work, but as it's basically chronological, doesn't seem too controversial to me. Anyway, look forward to seeing some further revisions! Rayray 15:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oxford

Nope, it was definitely oxford uni.

Someone's edited the article to say Doherty began a course at Oxford rather than London University, I'm pretty sure that's wrong!

He got a place at Oxford and dropped out a month or two into his first year.

I'd like more information, ie. which college? why dropped out? were there too many rahs?

He was a rah himself- from an upper middle class army background. His father was an officer of rank.

Still like to know which college. Also: Cherwell today says he turned down an Oxford offer in favour of UCL. Is this an error?

It was definitely Oxford he dropped out of, he never went to UCL.

-- 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

A few minor amendments

I have made a few minor adjustments, such as For Lovers being essentially a Wolfman single, pete is technically credited as a feature. Also Babyshambles have only one single so far, Killamangiro, the song Babyshambles was released as a Peter Doherty solo credit.

As for the homo-erotic rumour, it has been widely published in the NME and has indeed been put to both of them as a question in an NME interview around the time of the March 2004 Libertines UK tour. I have a picture of them microphone sharing which illustrates the homo-erotic nature as described, from the 2003 gig in Chatham immediately after Pete's release.

To add to this, I (not the person who made the other changes) have deleted the link to "Bisexual musicians" from this page as Pete Doherty is not bisexual.

-- There are many pictures of them mic-sharing in many concert photos. Indeed, this is not uncommon behaviour among musicians. There have, however, been brief allusions to homoeroticism, but hardly enough to constitute a serious concentration on it within this particular article lest it misrepresent a very strong former friendship (proven several times over) into something more than that (extremely circumstantial and dubious).

He said he was a gay rent boy in his book and his girlfriend said she caught him with guys and had mmf threesomes with him so yeah, he's bi... openly. I'm putting the link back. Zythe 15:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Addiction to "drugs"?

he was addicted to crack cocaine, and heroin, however, couldnt inject for a while.

There are a lot of drugs. Couldn't kill to be more specific.

Moss

Apart from a brief bit in the opening there is nothing about Kate Moss. The lack is glaring. Can it be fixed? SqueakBox 16:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

doherty dead????????

one small wonder, why is public interest so much greater concerning random cokeheads and their sexuality than historical facts and amazing ideas! just for one example Renée Descartes who came up with an amazing principle "Cogito Ergo Sum" "I think therefore I am" is hardly known compared to someone who has made no difference or effect on our culture or philosophy and has reached celebrity status and the news headlines by getting stoned andd attacking journalists.

Oh shut up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack39 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 1 November 2005

Oh get on, he's a worthless little tosspot, a public school-boy "slumming it" for kicks. I find it fucking partonising that the little prick trys to represent the steriotypical northener. He's a bright lad who got caught up in an image of what he could be and now he's surrounded himself with similar losers who tell him he wuz king. Fucking brat.--Crestville 00:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I just think its really sad that Carl n Pete are fucked now. Whatever anyone thinks they were friends/bisexual or whatever, the fact is they were really close and now they're not and it fucking sucks. Pete needs to fucking clean himself up cos he aint the same anymore.

A Level subjects

English Literature was definitely one of his A-Level subjects, given he got a place at university to study it, but are the other three listed here definite? What's the source?

Too much trivia - does this article need weeding?

I think this article could do with being shorter, and having less trivia in it. I'd like to rewrite it so that it say:

1. Who PD is and why he's significant. 2. What he's done. 3. Where people can find out more information.

I'm not sure that there's any value, for example, in an exhaustive list of his live performances and various arrests.

Would people object? --Rayray 16:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering how many arrests are building up, I certainly don't. Saj 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually think that the arrests/controversy list is quite relevant, at least for the present moment. He will be dead next year, I can guarantee it and its quite factual, its hard to find the definitive list of all the controversies anywhere else (try it) and who knows 10 years down the line some of these things may be lost. I would suggest a backup be made at least. You could rewrite the article of course but keep the controversies and arrests section

Adi 12:20, 03 January 2005

why not create a new article with all his arrests etc... there's enough of them...and plenty more to come no doubt!

           oh yeah thats really productive well done

He's bi

If a person considers themselves bi and their ex girlfriend says he enjoys mmf threesomes, that makes him bi. I'm putting back bisexual musicians.Zythe 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to that, but it might be good to back it up with some of the evidence you mention in the article, e.g. quotes from the ex-girlfriend in question, from published interviews, or published quotations from Doherty himself. As it is, the bisexual musicians categorisation is going to keep being removed as different people see it and think "Well, I've never heard anything about that - probably just someone mucking about." Rayray 23:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15434908&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=ex-lover--doherty-s-bisexual-name_page.html and http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/entertainment/41652004.htm :) Zythe 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Those are tabloids. Complete rubbish.

That's not evidence, it's tabloid rubbish, Doherty himself admitted he made up the whole bisexual thing in the first place "for a laugh", and that girl never actually went out with Doherty and sold countless false stories claiming to have done so for publicity.

-So?! Pete is known to blow things out of proportion, and turn them into a much greater thing than it actually is. In the book "Kids in the riot - high and low with The Libertines", he and Carl are often in a different state, concerning incidents, they both experienced; however, they often have a very different idea of what actually happened. This whole homosexual-thing is all about getting attention, if not from the media! I’m not denying that he’s snogged a man, he has, hell, we’ve all seen that! But does that really make him gay? No, not really, it just supports the fact that he likes the medias attention with being a rebel, as he would interpret it as.

If the "reliable" pages of ‘The Mirror’ - or even worse ‘Star’, are ones safest source to news, you should be surprised at nothing! They are always having a go at him, and as the above has pointed out, it's not as if Pete doesn't give them an excuse to. They love it - and so does he!

Doherty has stated that he would consider having a relationship with another man in an interview. He often contradicts himself, but I can't remember an instance of him flat out denying that he is bisexual. Because there is plenty of doubt, surely it is acceptable to refer to it in the article? To ignore the issue makes the article seem inaccurate.

I think if Doherty is cited in published sources (however unreliable) identifying himself as bisexual, for whatever reason, and hasn't sued for libel, then it's worth including. He's either bisexual, or is happy to be publicly identified as such (like David Bowie in the early 1970s), and it is therefore significant. Perhaps a note explaining the publicity angle should also be appended, however? --Rayray 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The question of his bisexuality or not is not exactly the mainstay of his personal and professional life, or even a huge part of his public persona. His most public romantic relationships have been with women anyway. Until we get more reputable sources and more confirmation on the subject, I wouldn't include it in the article. To do so, based on tabloids, would mean to accept a high degree of speculation, which would be more inaccurate than simply omitting it until we have something more to go on. --Saj 22:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion either way - you're right that he's rarely described as "bisexual musician Pete Doherty", and that, for most people, it's not his defining feature. Having said that, I'd rather leave a line or two on it in the article just to avoid an endless cycle of deletions and reverts: some people obviously feel strongly that this should be included, and it's inclusion doesn't do the article any harm, as far as I can see.Rayray 08:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, I suppose. The insistence of including this is a strange one since it's not a major part of his public identity, but a few lines mentioning this, as long as it is pointed out that such claims are alleged, is acceptable. -- Saj 22:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you know what, i'm not sure if he's bi, but he is a wanker. fact.

He also said in a biography that he used to be a gay rent boy though, right?

Does any one have a link to any sources backing up the claim that he had an affair with Elton John?

: If you go to pro.corbis.com and search for Pete Doherty pictures, you can definitely find one from Live 8 where he's mouth-kissing Elton John. That's not tantamount to an "affair," but it's something.

As there is no concrete evidence to suggest bisexuality I'm deleting its reference. I'm also placing a request for verifiable sources to be cited when adding information and to add them to current statements. Super Ted 16:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

- The reason he's never "flat out denied he's bisexual" is because it's never been a serious issue. It's known not to be true by the more sensible press and the music press so it's never been significant enough to ask him about it directly. The only relationships that he's ever had which have been documented have been with women, other than the one false story about him once being with a rent boy - and even that doesn't show he's bisexual as no intimate contact is documented, just him being in the presence of one and taking his money. Also he wouldn't sue because if he was suing papers for printing false claims about him he'd never stop (for example an article in the Sunday Mirror around 18 months back which included an interview with his supposedly "ex girlfriend" - who turned out to be a girl he'd met once or twice) and as he put it himself he's "too disorganised" to sue newspapers for anything anyway.

Politics?

Do you think it’s important to add a section or reference to his politics and activism? I’ve read interviews were he claims to have taken part in anti-capitalist protests on May Day, he references them in the song “time for heroes”. And the song “walking away” comments on his ‘socialistic views’. He also participated in a “love music hate racism’ gig. --Monty Cantsin 02:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

i found that article i was looking at before fomr theSocialist Review--Monty Cantsin 03:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I would back up this idea strongly. Adi 12:23, 03 January (UTC)

I've found his politics are rather over-the-place when he talks in interviews. At some points mentioning socialism and at some points a 'libertarian paradise' - to be honest, I think they are far from definite and the most certain point one can make on them is that he believes in a far more innocent and apolitical type of decency between people. --Breadandcheese 10:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A libertarian in the European sense is an anti-authoritarian leftist, Chomsky calls himself a Libertarian. This being distinct from what in America call but non-Americans would call a ‘liberal’ or economic liberal to be distinct from a social liberal. So that ‘libertarian paradise’ although being utopian fits in my mind. if you have more links to interviews it would be good to try and get somthing together...even start it off at A and progress with it. --Monty Cantsin 09:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Guardian Article

I have removed the part about Caroline Butler's article on living with 'Pete Doherty'. It is an unspecified rock star in the article that is illustrated with a picture of Doherty as an example of a self destructive musician. If you read the article it is clearly not him that is being referred to.

Link to North East England musicians

While Doherty may be included on the list, I don't believe is is generally associated with being a 'Northerner' - clearly he has made London his home and was raised in many different places. I believe it should be removed. --Breadandcheese 10:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he was born in Hexam and that's about the extent of his link to "the north". He's spent the vast majority of his life in London and clearly identifies himself as a Londoner.

Elton John

I have deleted the section that references rumours of an affair with Elton John that involved the pair sharing a flat and sharing narcotics and sexual practises. I have not heard this rumour at all and a search on Google does not bring anything, and besides Elton John is in a long term relationship and recently got married to David Furnish. I do not believe that Pete Doherty is Gay or Bi-Sexual.

A-Levels

This is the first I have heard of these specific A-levels. I knew English Literature, but I was always under the impression he had one in French and one in German. However, I could be mistaken. I hope you don't mind if I ask for a source?

Pete Doherty

How do u pronouce pete dohertys last name is it doHerty or doCherty??? i know its doherty but my friend thinks its docherty please help us work out whos right or wrong thanks beki

From people talking on the radio I believe it to be Doe-erty User:Matt.whitby

Definately Doh-herty. Super Ted 12:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

His name is definitely pronounced "DoCK-er-ty." That is how he says it, and he ought to be the authority. OneVeryBadMan 06:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

-- His sister uses Doh-Herty. I went to school with her. And she's nowhere near as messed up as he is.

It must have been many years since you were at school with her. In the Rolling Stone profile (ninth paragraph), the reporter specifically notes that it is pronounced, "Dock-erty." OneVeryBadMan 00:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Better not...

I'm half tempted to add 'Category:Railway accidents' to this article :) exolon 03:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive

I've nominated this article at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive, any votes would be much appreciated.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pete Doherty/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I rated this article as B-Class, because it basically meets the criteria for a good article: It is readily comprehensible to readers unfamiliar with the topic; it is structured (contains a lead section, has subtitles, etc.); it basically follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style; it provides reference to reliable sources; it addresses all major aspects of the topic; it follows the neutral point of view policy. However, there's a lot to do. Weak points of the article: I expect it to still be full of spelling mistakes, because attentive readers frequently find some; It barely contains pictures; Many passages contain too many unnecessary details; There's always a bunch of uncertain information solely based on rumours around. (At least it is always phrased as such.) and, which is not really a weakness, but still, the article is not stable, not at all. -- dreadlady 15:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Surely this article needs to be re-evaluated? I mean, the weak points have been generally rectified and the general look has been greatly improved. A-class status is surely deserved? --Leowatkins 20:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)