Jump to content

Talk:Pete Wentz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.161.0.44 (talk) at 07:40, 27 July 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Birthdate

There seems to be a citation needed for Pete's birthday.

I've found one that's at least somewhat credible: http://au.youth.yahoo.com/b/girlfriend/4496/pete-wentz/

What do you think? Should someone edit that in as a source? Final Philosopher (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not bisexual?

I think the tone of the Out interview makes that explicitly clear.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when can wikipedia know the future? We are still in july 2008!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.186.188 (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an already published interview? Not one in the future. Weird.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is bisexual, but he was denying that he's homosexual. Don't get the two confused. And just because he married a woman does NOT mean his sexuality changed. He's still bisexual. --Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone revert the vandalisms

•I noticed this page is heavily vandalized could some one revert it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.110.113 (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•There seems to be very little evidence supporting the claims of how Mr. Wentz feels about children, as well as his relationship with the pope. Bovine Buddy (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Early life section without allowing time to source it

One overeager user deleted an entire section of important facts because he had put a tag on it to cite sources. Four days later, after only one other person had even edited the page, he deleted the entire, important section. This violates the spirit of Wikipedia. The information is simple and factual and easily sourced, not exactly controversial. Fans just need a little time to bother citing the sources. Please give it at least a week or two, which is the norm before deleting an entire section for that reason. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This goes against WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:BURDEN. Go read the policies. JBsupreme (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, YOU need to read them again, because your reading comprehension must not be very good. The policy as explicitly expressed in those links (which I had already read) is to instantly delete CONTENTIOUS facts about living people. Where he was born is not a contentious fact, it took me about 10 seconds to find 20 different sources verifying it. You could have spent that time verifying non-contentious facts rather than destructively engaging in an edit war.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to waste my time with you. The burden is on you to cite sources when any content related to a WP:BLP subject is contested. End of discussion. (You can reply, but be sure that I will ignore you from this point on.) JBsupreme (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any third party would agree that I am correct, since I am just paraphrasing the WP guidelines. You seem to struggle with reading comprehension. The mere fact that YOU contested something frivolously does not make it CONTENTIOUS. You were basically contesting an obvious fact that you could have verified with 20 seconds of research. Perhaps you should go to sleep?Aroundthewayboy (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that you were "removing nndb.com and myspace.com as they are COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE as sources -- WP:BLP violations will be removed promptly)" However, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources, Myspace is a perfectly appropriate source for BLP. I actually already explained this when I made the edit, but you seem insistent on an edit war. For your convenience, here is the relevant passage from the guidelines:

Using the subject as a self-published source

Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subject himself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if: 

  1. it is not contentious;
  2. it is not unduly self-serving;
  3. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  4. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  5. there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  6. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.

Furthermore, you seem to misunderstand the guidelines you quote. The point of the BLP guidelines is to avoid defamation, it is not to remove all basic, encyclopedic facts from bios. That is why there is the qualifiers about CONTENTIOUS facts, and that is why personal blogs of living people are acceptable minor sources. You are acting extremely un-WP. I urge you to take a break from the edit war and let a third party chime in with his or her opinion. That's what I'm doing. Thank you and goodnight.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aroundthewayboy, NNDb and MySpace are not reliable sources. NNDb can be edited by anyone, making is an unreliable source per WP:RS. MySpace is not a reliable, third-party, published source, so that can't be used either. After a certain amount of time, unreferenced material can be removed per lack of citations, whether contentious or not. When reverting edits, you should cite the removed material, or don't bother readding it. If not, it's better to talk to the editor and form a consensus before starting an edit war. I'd also like to remind both of you to remain civil before you start attacking each other. I requested the article to be fully protected to stop this feud and actually talk things over. I'll gladly help search for reliable sources and help end this feud. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 06:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I think the NNDB got in there because I was rushing to stop his insane edit war, I didn't mean to cite that. But a question: Did you read the guidelines directly above your reply? It is from the guideline for sources for BLP, and it says that blogs and personal sites WRITTEN BY the person in question are valid sources. Why wouldn't his official Myspace blog count? I'm genuinely confused by that. Can you explain how it violates the guidelines that I cited above -- i.e., "Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subject himself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs."Aroundthewayboy (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I never said that uncited info couldn't be removed after some time, I said it couldn't be removed IMMEDIATELY. My understanding is that in BLP (bios of living people), for legal reasons, uncited CONTENTIOUS material can be removed immediately. Uncited NON-contentious material, however, requires the usual grace period to allow people to cite sources.
Also, it is irrelevant whether Myspace is a reliable, third party, published source, because there is a special rule for biographies of living people. I have cited this rule about three times already, but to be perfectly clear: "Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subject himself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs." I didn't make the rule, I'm only following it. :) Seriously, I would have used a different source, but I had just reread the guidelines and noticed that personal cites were good sources, and it turns out he blathers on about his childhood on his official Myspace page.
Please clarify how either of these interpretations is flawed. Thanks! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, there's no proof the MySpace link you providied is actually him. Who's to say that's not a fake profile? There is no verification that is actually is him. Anyone can create an account and claim to be a celebrity. This could be the real Pete Wentz, but there's no proof. There is doubt that he's the real Pete Wentz. I searched MySpace music and found no official page (note the difference here and here). MySpace is therefore unreliable. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 07:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a completely uninvolved editor, if we were to apply WP:BLP as stated, then the MySpace page is highly suspect. I would not include it due to the reason above, as the MySpace page as used does not return as a official page, and as such, we cannot tell if the person who controls the MySpace page is Pete Wentz himself. Even a search on MySpace does not return a official hit on him, except to the official Fallout Boy page. If there is any further dispute regarding the reliability of sources, I suggest that you pose a query at WP:RSN. Thanks. ThePointblank (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the Myspace page being unverified. But if the info were on an official Myspace page, Myspace would be a valid source. I don't care about Pete Wentz (his music is horrid), but I'm interested in the abstract procedural question. Thanks. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As ThePointblank said, you might want to take your thoughts over to WP:RSN and see what responses you get there. As for the edit war—I've search and haven't found anything in any reliable sources about Wentz's early life. I'd suggest removing the section entirely until something can be cited. I have found a couple sources about Wentz's early career though; I'll gladly add this information when protection is lifted, but first, we must form a consensus. Do you, Aroundthewayboy, agree to remove the early life section until it's able to be adequately sourced? DiverseMentality 06:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Have you even read this discussion? Most of the 'Early Life' section as it currently stands is already sourced (Chicago Magazine and Rolling Stone magazine, both eminently reliable sources). There are one or two sentences that I sourced in controversial ways because I didn't have time to devote to it. I cannot believe that you "searched and haven't found anything in reliable sources about his early life." How long did you search? Half a second? I just spent exactly twenty seconds googling, and found the following sources, which more than satisfy the criteria for RS. Please include them in the citations if you insist, but absolutely do not delete the sentences, I just don't have time to devote my entire life to this entry.
The following story in ABC News's nightline is the source for many of the original statements, about enjoying soccer and all that stuff. There are actually more details that could be included by somebody who cares. I repeat, I found this in twenty seconds by Googling "Depaul University Pete Wentz." :) Anyhow, here it is:http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Playlist/story?id=3514965&page=1
Here's another source about him studying political science at depaul: http://www.collegecandy.com/buzz/9701
Thank you for your respect in at least asking my opinion before gratuitously deleting the section, unlike the earlier edit warrior. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note how I said until it's able to be adequately sourced. Since you've brought up the sources, I'll gladly add them if you don't have time to. Can we now agree that the edit war is over so this information can be properly sourced? DiverseMentality 03:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, thanks for your patience. Please note that the links I provided are adequate sources for all the statements in the current version, plus some. Thanks. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the mysterious drama lurking behind to most innocent of pages. Here is the field where egos collide in disunity, even as they attempt to collaborate. From whence hath these proud warriors come? Where shall they go, their dispute settled? these are questions for those smarter than me. 72.160.115.101 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if he's bisexual...

then why isn't he in "the LGBt category --> bisexual musician"???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.219.229.2 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be placed in LGBT and religious categories, living people must 1.Publicly self-identify with the label in question and 2. It must be relevant to their public lives. Wentz did not use the label of bisexual in the article, and he also stated he was uninterested in men below the waist. Thus he may not actually consider himself bisexual. Unless he clarifies his statements regarding his sexuality, we should not label him anything. Those are the official rules of Wikipedia, please respect them. Asarelah (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. In an interview once, he stated he's "gay above the belt" and not in a joking way. Plus, he has alluded to his bisexuality. I'm not saying to put the LGBT thing back, but just telling you what I know. --Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need to have a Fall Out Boy career section

Although I don't like Wentz or his FOB band, I feel that this biography is incomplete if it doesn't have a section explaining the history/achievements of Fall Out Boy. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! An IP deleted it on September 4, 2008, and I just restored it. See also my record on such situations. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter Fight with perez hilton

he had a fight with perez hilton on twitter about the death of michael jackson, do you guys think it should be put on the page?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pete_Wentz&oldid=304436576"