Talk:Pete Wentz

I LOVE PETE<3Bold text Bold text==facts section== Someone posted a whole plethora of facts about Pete under the "facts," section, however most of the facts are already stated somewhere else in the article (such as name, birthdate, birthplace, etc...) or they were very irrelevant, such as "he has teddy bear shoes." I erased them.

Again with the facts section -- tons of unverified and out of context material. This needs to be fixed gradually.--Esprit15d 13:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• The ones I felt were not relevant to an enclyclopedia article, that sounded more like things on a fansite, I removed. The other two facts I left can be found mentioned in Spin magazine, I believe it is the January 2006 issue. Spuddy 17 03:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha this is funny go on please! Oh and is Peter sXe or not?

lalalla kaka poopoo

hahaha thats funny weirdo

Pete's battle with depression

I erased the sentences that talked about Pete's battle with depression. Though factual, it really has nothing to do with his biography, especially comments such as "the lovely lyricist."

Actually, that does have something to do with his biography. I would have to review the statment to see if was well-worded or if it was being related to something irrelevant, but simply because it was about depression is not a valid reason erase a factual statement.--Esprit15d 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

--152.163.100.71 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

==rumors

• Please do not post rumors, such as "He is engaged to Amie," when if fact he is not.
• The sentence talking about alcoholism running in Pete's family, and then going on to say that he is straight edge and vegetarian, or he once was, is speculation, unless you can post sources for these statements. ==

sammy randell Actually, him being engaged was a confirmed fact. Whether it is to Amie or not, that is a different story.

     he actually started the band/

IF PEOPLE WANT TO POST RUMORS, THEY CAN. RUMORS ARE NOT TRUE. IF HE'S NOT ENGAGED TO AMIE, THEN ITS A RUMOR. LET IT BE. YOU DON'T RUN THE BAND FALL OUT BOY AND YOU'RE NOT THEIR PR REP. LET IT GO. THANK YOU.

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan website. Rumors have no merit to be posted here. Do not post rumors, they will be removed immediately. Also, irrelevant facts such as "He wears a size 4 in Hollister jeans" have no merit in this article. They will be removed as well.Spuddy 17 01:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Where are people getting this info about pete directing a movie? this seems like just a rumor. is there some sort of source for this info?

he is directing a movie "Release the Bats" DUHHHHHHH

correction

I erased the statement that Pete has written all of Fall Out Boy's lyrics. That is incorrect. Patrick did pen some lyrics from "Take This To Your Grave."

• -whoever wrote this is inncorrect because if you have the fall out boy CD

you can see at the bottom of the last page it says Lyrics by Pete Wentz and Music by Patrick(which mean he wrote the note for the music) DUHHHHHH

• No, actually I am not incorrect. Patrick wrote the lyrics of the verses in "Saturday," and he also wrote the first verse of "Patron Saint of Liars and Fakes." I believe it was the "Take This to Your Grave Director's Cut" where he talks about this. Pete and Patrick have also talked about how with their new album (From Under the Cork Tree) they decided to have Pete write all the lyrics, and Partick write all of the music, as opposed to both of them trying to do both tasks, as they did on "Take This to Your Grave." You must be looking at "From Under the Cork Tree", because the insert for "Take This to Your Grave" does not have pages, and in the credits section it says "lyrics by Peter Wentz and Patrick Stump." :) Spuddy 17 19:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Semiprotection

This page is semiprotected now due to massive vandalism by anon users. Please let me know if anyone has an objection. Thanks. --BorgQueen 21:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

research projct on Pete;i need help

i am doing a report on pete for a class and there are some things i need to know that i cant find the answers for.can someone help me?these are some of the questions i need to know the answers to:

At what age did he show a talent/interest for his future career? Bold textHe once said he started playing bass when he was 14. He said he stole it from his friends older brother. He was also in the Band Arma Angelus before Fall Out Boy as well as a few other small small bands

What role did the family have in encouraging or discouraging development of this talent or interest? his family was pretty suportive. his dad was described as 'the only person wearing a tie at the shows' and his mom has a fob bumper sticker on her car. i cant say for sure but i think they were pretty ok with it. pete wasnt like a perfect child or anything, he says that his mom stopped really caring what he did after she decided that it was all for attention and stuff.

What special training did he have?

At what age did he first do something that people, other than his family thought was exceptional? What accomplishment was this?

What unusual things happened in his life that had an effect on his career? ummm, he overdosed once. that probably affected everything, including his career for obvious reasons. this happened in a best buy parking lot if u cared. he said that since the thumsia he had been parinoied and depressied thats why he took the pills and overdosed.

Did he have any handicaps?Explain. depression. esp. during the recording of fuct. cause he was homesick and would go record and then sit in his room under a blanket wanting the world to go away. it was pretty hard for him to do both. Patrick was pretty scared by it all.

What special awards did he win,if any? mtv VMA and and MTVU Woody award and he got nominated for a grammy. Blender Magazine also had Sugar We're going Down as #4 best song of 2005." What was one special event that was a highlight in his life once fame was reached? pete always talks about how amazing it was to see people singing the lyrics to the songs (which he wrote) louder than patrick at his shows. He also said being able to show his family "all the practices and buying them a van and equipment paid off, and turned into something they could be proud of" in their "my heart will always be the b-side to my tongue dvd" (i suggest you watch it, it has good info)i donno if that counts cause i donno the exact event...

if any of you know the answer to any of these questions or could direct me to a place where i could find the answer,it would help A LOT.this report is due on February 10,so i need the answers SOON!

Try these links: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/qa/story/9142953 and http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/falloutboy . Best wishes!--Esprit15d 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

wat is the main topic of the assignment? -XchloeXlovesXpeterX User: Armapunk79

Protection

How about semi-protecting this again? All sorts of crap is constantly put into this article. jni 19:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont really see a reason for protection as much as prehaps an addition about the leaking of his sidekick pictures...the only reason I feel these are being kept from the site is because of fans who want to forget about the incident; I would love to forget about alot of things, but it still happened and is still reason for addition to his wiki.

I agree, we need to semi-protect this page again. This entry is going to be hammered with crap about pictures, when it's not of any value to be included in this article. -evianboy

 You don't think that news about is sidekick getting hacked needs to be added?  It's still a part of his infamy now.

Couldn't possibly be more relevant. Expanded the information and added a bunch of citations. -VJ 02:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

the infamous pictures

Okay, Thivierr removed the following section, citing that it is gossip and blogs are not reputable sources:

--Scandal--

In March of 2006, nude photos of Pete Wentz were posted on the Internet to the LiveJournal community Oh No They Didn't. After the pictures spread across the Internet [1], Wentz posted a response on Fall Out Boy's website and blog alleging that the pictures were stolen from his T-Mobile Sidekick. Wentz's account conflicts with that of the original LiveJournal post which states that Wentz sent these pictures to a woman in whom he had romantic interest (the girlfriend of an ex-best friend [2]).

I don't think we can have this article not make mention of this incident, since it put Pete Wentz on the map for a lot of people (it was all over radio stations and even mentioned on Fall Out Boy's official website). The section does not use the blogs as a source, so much as it does reference the blogs to justify saying "this was posted to the blogs" or "the blog said this", which is, of course, true. There's no debating the pictures were posted, there's no debating what the blog said, and it was all important enough to rile the article's subject himself. Plus, the latter blog is owned by somebody who the band has publicized ties to. If the blog belonged to the band itself, would posts on it not be reputable enough to be sourced?

If you want to clean this up somehow, so that it doesn't "reference" blogs and only mentions Wentz's reaction on the Fall Out Boy website without explaining the situation at all (does this sound reasonable to anyone?) then do so, but I don't see how this article can not mention this incident... -VJ 16:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added the 'picture incident' in, how can you leave that out? that's like not mentioning paris hilton was involved in a sextape on her page.- Brodey

And yet the people insistent on removing this section are not commenting on it here. This needs to stop. Spuddy 17 removed Brody's attempt at documenting the incident, citing the talk page, when he has NOT commented on that topic here. If neither Spuddy 17 nor Thivierr makes a reasonable retort, I am re-adding a section on the incident in a day. This is ridiculous. The incident must be mentioned. If you guys take issue with the way we are covering it, then think of a better way instead of just removing it without discussion.-VJ 06:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. -VJ 01:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, not only is adding about someone's personal pictures riduculous, but to even link to sites where they are at is just wrong. What encyclopedia, in the history of the world, would do that? Is that what wikipedia is for? Gossip and scandal? No, I believe that's the National Enquirer. This is a guy, he is in a band, a notable thing, and the only information that is encyclopedia-worthy would be name, birthplace, dob, short bio and what he is involved in. If my friend were to have pictures posted on the internet of nudity, would that be worthy of a wikipedia entry? Stop adding this nonsense! You bring the whole quality of the site down. Evianboy 16:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede that we should remove the links to sites where they are posted, but not mentioning them is like saying we shouldn't mention the Monica Lewinsky stuff on Clinton's article because him being president is notable enough. -VJ 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Stop Debating if the links should be there or not. just leave them. its really no big deal...Personally I like them there... -XchloeXlovesXpeterX User:Armapunk79

Would you open up the Encyclopedia Britannica and find links or directions to nude pictures? Evianboy 20:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

sure why not... -XchloeXlovesXpeterX

The Encyclopedia Britannica is peppered with, not only nudity, but referals to nudity and scandalous stories. You need to read the book The Know-It-All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World. It was a real eye opener for this guy too.--Esprit15d 13:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I commented out the links. Is that better? -VJ 07:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think they should be there... -XchloeXlovesXpeterX

PLEASE READ
The section on Wentz's nude photos is about the article's topic (Pete Wentz), definitely verifiable, and so newsworthy that Wentz felt the need to comment on the incident on his website. Additionally, the section has been written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. So this information meets wikipedia's standard for inclusion. Being a fan, or that the incident is "inappropriate" or "obscene", or personally thinking the incident is blown out of porportion (even if true) in no way merit the information to be removed. Edit wars, however, are against wikipedia policy, and this page (and most popular musician pages) have been subject to egregious amounts of vandalism and random edits. If you have the desire to remove large portions of content based on any criteria other than NPOV, copyediting, or verifiablity, it needs to be discussed here first, or it will be handled as vandalism.--Esprit15d 13:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking out on my side, as I've largely been defending this section myself. Evianboy, however, simply won't listen. I seeked help from the administrator issue panel and was told that since he reverts less often than three times a day, he doesn't violate the three-revert rule and this should just be treated as a content dispute. Note that all removals of the Scandal section in the past month or so have been by Evianboy or an IP which is clearly his (since it makes the exact same types of edits on this page and blanked all my test warnings from his talk page - the IP was also used to make many consistently stupid and immature vandalism edits), so it's really just one guy we're dealing with here. -VJ 17:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)