Talk:Pete Doherty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Archives
March 2005 – April 2006

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[1] 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[2] 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 [3] 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[4] 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[5]. However, another Independent article [6] 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[7] and dropped out, but in another article[8], 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[9]. 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.[10] 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)

[edit] 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[11]. 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!

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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!

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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[12]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [13].)

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.

This kid is fucking pathetic. He's an unstoppable junkie, and he's in what? Babyshambles? What are they, how do I know of this amazing band? Oh yeah, their junkie singer keeps getting into trouble. Members of bands hundreds of times as legendary aren't anywhere near as sad as Doherty.

[edit] External Links

It's starting to become rather large and I think should be trimmed, but we need to decide what's relevant. I don't think individual interviews should be linked to, nor should the Libertines biography website, Yahoo News Search or blog (under WP:EL). I would just leave The Libertines and Babyshambles official websites, the Books of Albion and FrenchDogBlues per above. Other opinions would be useful. Trebor 12:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/t/Talk%7EPete_Doherty_3d46.html"

Categories: Biography articles of living people | Arts and entertainment work group articles | B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles | Unknown-priority biography (arts and entertainment) articles | Old requests for Biography peer review | B-Class biography articles | Biography articles with comments | Biography (arts and entertainment) articles with comments