Talk:Peter Kay

Pictures

All articles about people should have pictures because it's difficult to know who they are without them.

Live 8

Did he really make a fool of himself in the studio during Live 8? I didn't see that bit and I can't find a source. Tim Ivorson 4 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

I have added the NPOV dispute tag to this article until an agreement can be reached on his performance at live8. Saying that he was "ranting", "ignoring the cause of the event" and so on is blatant POV. I would correct the POV problem myself, but I think that a general consensus would be better. --Sanguinus 00:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd just remove the section... for two reasons: 1. Wikipedia is not about reviewing a particular performance of a comedian. The addition is blatant bias. 2. Even it was a review: Kay's performance while being interviewed at Live8 wasn't brilliant, but I didn't recognise it from the description here... it was no worse than many others. Motor 22:33, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've edited this so it is more neutral (or at least less anti Peter Kay and added some more info. Brimstone July 16 2005 *(UTC)

I removed most of the section... not only is it pure opinion, in many parts it is deliberate misinformation. Motor 20:26, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

There's some superlatives in there that are unnecessary, but the way Peter is going at the moment he's going to get a Criticisms subheading soon! :D --PopUpPirate 03:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The thing about him being drunk is unlikely as Kay is teetotal (despide advertising John Smiths)--Crestville 12:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV dispute tag as I think we've gotten rid of most of the POV material. --Sanguinus 12:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see his live 8 appearence myself, but from what I've been told by a friend who did see it, pretty much none of what was previously said in the article was true. I wish I'd seen it myself, but based on secondary information, I'm led to believe the original section on live 8 may well have been factually incorrect, as well as POV. Maybe somebody could correct me here? I'm genuinly interested in what Peter Kay did at live 8 now. Anybody see his performance? What actually happened? Aaarrrggh 21:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw him. He did have a bit of a clash with the 'voiceover' and was ushered off for a few minutes (though it's likely that this was due more to the 'voiceover man' wanting to say something than Kay's behaviour). Other than that, he did relatively well, although he was far from stunning. --Sanguinus 21:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah right. Thanks for clearing that up :-) Aaarrrggh 12:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Grammatical errors fixed

Fixed some grammatical errors that were in some titles and links. Singerisbored 18:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Salford University

Peter Kay studied at Salford University I'm not sure when or what but surely it should be on. This is the link to prove it- http://www.salford.ac.uk/about/famous/

Gay

What's up with the whole 'Peter Gay' thing?

It's not even remotely funny.

is he?

What Peter Gay thing? He's married and has a child, no he's not gay. TR_Wolf

Recent additions by user:Spum

Spum - lots of new information here, which I hope I've managed to keep. I've just restyled and re-ordered some of it, and taken out the odd bit if POV language (I'm not a fan of turns of phrase like "skyrocketed" in encyclopedia articles). --Rayray 14:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Does this paragraph make any sense?

I'm having big trouble understanding the following paragraph. I would edit it if I had any idea what was being said! Should it be deleted?

"Despite the fact that Peter portrays most of the characters in all series of his productions using himself in costume or make up, the other members of the cast have expressed the jovial idea that Peter does it simply for the paycheck, although this is something which Peter has always denied - claiming he had the characters storyboarded from the very beginning of the Pilot."82.133.109.202 23:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Kay often portrays the characters in his series himself, using an array of costumes and makeup. The other members of the cast have joked that Kay only does this for the paycheque, as he will be payed for each character he plays. However, Kay denies these accusations claiming that he has had the look of the characters storyboarded from the very beginning of the Pilot episode.

or something to that effect?--Crestville 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's much better - nice one! However, I have doubts about the use of the word 'storyboarded' - it means something else - maybe 'conceived' would be better. Also - Do you reckon 'paycheque' is a bit of an Americanism in a British English article, even with its amended spelling?

How about:

Kay often portrays the characters in his series himself, using an array of costumes and makeup. The other members of the cast have joked that Kay only does this in order to command higher payment for his performance, being paid for each character he plays. However, Kay denies these accusations, claiming that he has had the 'look' of the characters conceived from the very beginning of the pilot episode.

84.12.180.23 07:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thats great, stick that in there. I can't spell for fuck anyway.--Crestville 11:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

'Peter Kay's official website is no more than a shop, which, whilst enhancing his bank balance yet further, does little to bring him closer to his fans.' - I removed this section, seems like POV to me. I didn't really think it has a place on here. liam_fee 21:50 27/3/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liam fee (talk • contribs) 21:51, March 27, 2006 (UTC)

There was an interview with Dave Spikey in a UK Sunday Newspaper late last Summer (so, completely accurate then). He said that Kay hates Daniel Kitson because Kitson thought the Ant and Dec characters in Phoenix Nights 2 were racist. Spikey also said that this is why Kitson is slated on the DVD commentary, and why, alledgedly, Kitson's face has been digitally speckled out on some repeats of his episodes. Spikey also says that he had had some disagreements with Kay and that was why he, and his fellow Phoenix Nights writer Neil Fitzmaurice declined to take part in the DVD commentary.

Given how roundly racists are mocked in the very first episode of Phoenix Nights, I very much doubt Peter Kay is that way inclined. 217.171.129.68 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember that Phoenix Nights was NOT solely written by Kay. Those first episode scenes could have been written by Dave Spikey or Neil Fitzmaurice. Mrstonky (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What was "In the Club"?

Having been through this article for copy editing, there is one aspect that isn't clear. When it says, '[They] settled on "In the Club"', this is the first reference to the title, and I'm presuming that it was an episode of That Peter Kay Thing that was developed into Phoenix Nights. Is this correct? If so, I will go back and change the paragraph to clarify this. Chris 42 14:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Peter's football allegiance

Is Peter really a Manchester United fan? I seem to remember hearing from somewhere that he supported Manchester City. And yet if he doesn't support Bolton Wanderers why is he often seen on TV in the team shirt, as were several of the people in the Amarillo video? Jess Cully 17:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now done some research online and found that Peter doesn't actually follow football - see here: [1] I've revised the page accordingly. Jess Cully 11:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is he related to Vernon Kay?

Just a thought, seeing as they're both called Kay and come from Bolton --80.194.5.154 10:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so.--Crestville 12:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, he's not. Two people can share a name and not be related. I'm sure Tony Blair and Lionel Blair arent brothers ;) TR_Wolf

You never see them together. Makes you think... Notreallydavid 23:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Coincidentally they are both Catholics and of very similar age, but did not attend school together since they lived in different parts of Bolton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.38.221 (talk • contribs)

Given that this user 81.99.38.221 has been inserting the name "Pradeep" in various articles, I wouldn't trust anything written by him - I don't believe they both came from Bolton, either. Stephenb (Talk) 08:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they do--Crestville 12:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake (I was thinking Norfolk, as I was busy reverting vandalism suggesting they came from there!) :-) Stephenb (Talk) 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, no you're right there. They are NOT from Norfolk--Crestville 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Alleged theft

"Manchester based comedians Dominic Woodward and Mike Wilkinson have both had material stolen by Peter Kay." Is therea source for this? It seems highly POV. I will delete untill a source is found. Help plz 23:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Embassy has changed my removal to "some have accused" this is much better in terms of NPOV, thanks for that, however I would still like a source, I'm not saying it is true, I'm not saying it isn't, but a source for the accusations would be nice! Thanks!

You'd need a strong source before you even mention such a sladerous allegation--Crestville 19:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading that information in The Sun newspaper. It also later cropped up in The Mirror. I don't have the full source, but in the same article it was revealed that Dave Spikey does not currently talk with Peter Kay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.244.250 (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Another complaint

"Kay now refuses to sign autographs in public." These seems pretty knew, any idea on a source? It's probably true as most celebs won't do it, but I like to dot 'i's and cross my 't's... Thanks. Help plz 19:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

-At the "Phoenix Club" / St Gregs Farnworth, when filming Road To Nowhere, one of my friends was an extra, and was stood in the foyer. PK barged past, "No autographs" - no-one had even asked for one. --PopUpPirate 17:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Could have been a joke. You need stronger evidence than that to claim he no-longer signs autographs.--Crestville 18:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Did it on me too, barged past saying "Dont do 'em, sorry". TR_Wolf

He signed an autograph and took a picture for me, so maybe that bit should be taken off.

No Merge

Peter Kay is not jerry stclaire

If a merge is going to take place then at the very least jerrys page should be merged into the pheonix nights page. Peter Kays site is to be related to him a person not a character. Thats why there are seperate shows,

tie this to both pheonix nights and the actor that played him.

I agree--Crestville 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes the same happond to me when they where filming the fire seen at st greggs in farnworth. used to go and watch when i was about 10. he used to drive a green ford focus estate hahah my memory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.254.9 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Future plans

Hi, When writing about future plans, you must remember that he is a comedian, and that future plans are subject to change. Even if he mentions it it might not come around to be done. - Jrgnet Talk 09:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Alan Driscoll

Hi have heard that Peter Kay has done some work under the pseudonum Alan Driscoll, any truth in this?

Don't think so, that guy has a site at http://www.alandriscoll.co.uk and he doesn't look like Peter Kay.

Original research

The criticism section appears to be entirely made up of original research and people's personal opinions. Lines such as "This impression was possibly instrumental to his being voted the most overrated comedian in a poll held on the comedy website Chortle" are conjecture, not fact. I've put the words "Peter Kay" and "Criticism" in a web browser. Three matching results came up. One was this page, one was Answers.com linking to this page and one was TV.com plagiarising this page. If there's no documented evidence anyone has said anything bad about this person, why is there a criticism section filled with complaints on a website that deals only with verifiable information? Wouldn't displaying such libellous information on a website constitute an illegal act? So would I perhaps have anyone's support for the entire section be deleted? ~~ Peteb16 00:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that section fails to meet the standards of living biography project in many regards Sedgwick8043 08:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section now, as per the rules specified in WP:BLP. ~~ Peteb16 21:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the criticism section seems to contain a large amount of very negative things about Peter... most of which appear to be unfounded with nothing to back them up. Hence I've added the tag. If these cannot be referenced within about a week I think we should delete all the ones currently labelled "citation needed". Anyone disagree? Paulfp 15:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As no-one has added references or objected to deletion, I have now deleted the Critisism section, for the reason that it contained lots of accusations and statements with nothing to back them up Paulfp 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Man--Crestville 12:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it unfair to remove this section! Why shouldnt there be a controversy/criticism section? These are just as much information as the rest of the article. I know several of them are true, including the autograph thing, and *definately* the M&S thing, because I work at the store which asked him! TR_Wolf

I don't understand you removing the criticism section. Because you don't agree with sources doesn't mean you have the right to take it off. Kay has a lot of faults and everyone can see them, to take it down seems childish and makes you look too much of a huge fan to me. Put it back up, this is supposed to be a bio, not a worship page. Wilko_DCFC

As sedgwick says , read the rules and guidelines:living biography project. If anything is childish, it is posting dubious gossip on an encyclopedia.Tremello22 (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix Nights - Spikey/Fitzmaurice dispute

As referred to on the main page, it's well-known that there was a dispute between Kay and Spikey & Fitzmaurice over how much credit he was taking after Phoenix Nights 2, but the article claims this was after a BAFTA win for the series. Phoenix Nights was only ever nominated for a BAFTA, but never won one.

I can't be 100% certain, but it's reasonable to assume the dispute happened either after the RTS Awards in March 2002, where Phoenix Nights 2 won best comedy, or possibly the British Comedy Awards 2002 in December 2002, where Phoenix Nights not only won the Peoples' Choice Award, but the best writer (singular) award for Peter Kay. The series 2 DVD (noticeably lacking contributions from Spikey and Fitzmaurice) came out afterwards, in October 2003, and neither of them appeared in Max & Paddy. Don't have any footage from either award event, so I'm not sure exactly what happened when the awards were given and what was (or wasn't) said, especially as Kay wasn't present in person at the Comedy Awards. 81.153.38.132 14:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Backlash from fans

I see the 'Criticism' section above and yes, that could be construed as point of view. However, in order to send a message to Kay and reflect public opinion, someone should add something to the main article to convey the backlash Kay has received from his own fans over his DVD releases for the past couple of years. Just go and read the many reviews at Amazon.co.uk for his latest release (December 2007) and he overwhelming gets 1 star (the minimum), basically because he seems to have re-hashed previously-released material - lock, stock and barrel - purely for financial gain at Christmastime. His previous release two years ago suffered the same criticism. These people do seem to have a point, as I've just watched the 1999 Comedy Store routine and noticed that many of the gags were still being used in his last-recorded material from 2005, and thus in his release from 2007. Erm, attempting to stretch material over almost an entire decade is probably pushing it for a 'top' comedian; that's the reserve of the old-school bunch like Ken Dodd, who don't make multi-£££millions like Kay does (or if they do, they don't tell the Revenue about it. Arf!) User: Jaydash, 01:25, 2 January 2008

Audio CD

I've added Peter Kay's audio CD The Best Of Peter Kay...So Far to the Albums section as an add on to his filmography (though the CD is a collection of audio from his stand up and Max & Paddy work). londonsista | ^Prod 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Family and personal life

The article does not mention anything about his family or his personal life; those things should be on a biographical page of one of Britain's most famous comedians/comedy actors. Where does he currently live? On the 'gay' section of this talk page, there is a comment stating that he is married and has a child. Can anyone verify that, and provide details and evidence? Werdnawerdna (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't provide you with any links, but he is married to a woman called (I think) Susan. She was in Phoenix Nights, as an audience member during the Clinton Baptiste medium segment.

I also seem to remember seeing a picture in a red top rag of the two with their new born baby.

I can't officially verify any of this though as I'm purely going off memory. But I can definitely say he was married. It's mentioned in the Phoenix Nights commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.56.250 (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Was he born and brought up in Farnworth? I remember him living 5 minutes away from me in Daubhill in Bolton. He will have been born in Farnworth as that is where Bolton's maternity unit was (is?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.41.41 (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Criticism (again)

Can any of these morons who insist on deleting a cited, NPOV section (ie, not just a couple of lines), care to explain their actions? I appreciate that there are clearly some die-hard fans, but surely the point of Wiki is to present a warts-and-all description, not just big someone up up as the best thing since sliced bread.

I'm putting it back up, the remover said it's too "POV"...but it's all about reviews (both professionally and non-professionally) and criticism from his own coworkers. User:WoD (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to put it back with reliable sources. If you don't they will be deleted again. And we don't use non-professional reviews as reliable sources. --Rodhullandemu 21:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection

• Applying policy, which some editors seem to have a hard time understanding, I have removed the "Criticism" section (again) as it is poorly sourced. Only one item- the Keith Lard mention- was reliably sourced within our guidelines. Non-professional reviews are NOT permitted by that policy. Since it seems also plain that edit-warring is likely to continue, I've protected the article against all editing for two weeks; this should be long enough for those editors to find reliable sources. Anyone wishing to add properly-sourced material in the meantime is able to use {{editprotected}} to make such requests. --Rodhullandemu 07:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the great 'verifiable sources' argument again. RHaE could never define what he considered to be a verifiable source, despite repeated requests; but don't bother looking for this 'debate' on his discussion page because he took it off. What he says would make more sense IF the rest of the article on Peter Kay wasn't poorly sourced with citations that don't exist or are press releases and fansites. Pot? Kettle? Black?. So if you have something positive to say, GOOD; if you have something negative to say, it will be DELETED and you will be threatened with being BLOCKED. And it though it was NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.65.24 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But considering the entire section was regarding the criticism Kay has received from his fans, why will reviews from fans who feel ripped off not do? Anyone who's seen the DVDs (which I have) and anyone who's read or written any reviews on those DVDs will say the same.WoD (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1. They are a self-selecting sample; how can we be sure that they are representative and not the result of some smear campaign? 2. How wonderful to have such psychic powers, unfortunately, this is original research, and not permitted- we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. 3. Per This it is the responsibility of an editor seeking to include any material to justify it, and this includes the reliability of its source. 4. This is the reason we have the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so that editors may seek advice from others as to point (3). 5. I recommend a reading of WP:RS. Next! --Rodhullandemu 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

" WE are an encyclopedia"? (sic) Crumbs - and i thought this was just a webpage. In fact, it is. Wikipedia is no more than a forum where users express their opinions. It is NOT an encyclopaedia since i know of no institution that will accept references or citations to Wikipedia. Sorry, but thats just the way it goes. WoD has a point - using reviews in Amazon could be argued as a reference to a peer-reviewed sources and arguably has more credence than some of the other sources used. With regards WP:RS, the page is vague and does NOT define reliable sources, merely leaving it open to interpretation. If you were to take the WP:RS literally, Wikipedia would be an empty vessel. Methinks some people need to take themselves less seriously and get out more. Next!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.224.222 (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to Rodhullandemu's message to me that

"Rm non-reference. This is an encyclopedia, for fuck's sake!)",

I'd also like to point out some rules to him - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_etiquette#Principles_of_Wikipedia_etiquette bingo99 01:49, 08 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for that, but some people are just not getting it. If you think this isn't intended to be an encyclopedia, make it one by using reliable sources. A handful of fans whingeing on some forum is not a reliable source. If you think it is, please feel free to argue so at this noticeboard. Meanwhile, my experience tells me it isn't, and I am mightily sick of having this repeated "debate" with editors who think they can flout the intention of policy by slipping shoddy references under the wire. Is that clear? --Rodhullandemu 06:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're "mightily sick" of it, there is an answer........—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.69.223 (talk • contribs)

.. indeed there is. Policy on biographies is non-negotiable, and the answer is to protect this page against editing for as long as necessary, and block any editors who persist in going against that policy. Anyone who wishes to make edits will have to apply for them using the {{editprotected}} template. Alternatively, editors can understand our policies, especially on reliable sources. Simple. --Rodhullandemu 19:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a lost debate to me. Some people clearly take this Wikipedia stuff and it's rules (which I'm guessing were sent down and written by our Lord God himself for how fanatically followed they seem to be) far too seriously to let anyone else dare suggest we use an ounce of common sense over the 10 Wiki Commandments. Bearing in mind this user actually takes extremely seriously the Wikipedia page for c**t, I highly doubt he's going to let common sense get in the way of the "rules". Oh well, another loss for common sense in the world. Such a shame. Good luck with all the reasonable sources and non-biased opinionated references on the c**t page. WoD (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Forget it. Cunt was an unsourced mess before I got to it; now it's a defensible and more encyclopedic article. Common sense may be fine, but encyclopedias require reliable sources to justify their assertions. The sources that are claimed to justify some of the allegations made about Peter Kay do not pass our most basic tests. If you have a problem with that, don't edit here, and I can arrange for that to happen, if you like. --Rodhullandemu 23:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not so sure that i would wish my epitaph to be 'the person who defined c##t on wikipedia', but each to their own. Back to topic - heard a few nods and whispers that Peter Kay was planning a few 'warm-up' gigs around the North West in readiness for an autumn tour. Can't find any too reliable on the internet to confirm this, so i wasn't going to add it to the article. Anyone heard anything or better still, point to a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.224.222 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's sad when a debate goes down to using bad language and personal attacks. There are very many people in entertainment with dubious personal lives often nasty ones. But Wikipedia TRIES to be a reference work. It is only when unverifiable opinion is put into it that it fails. Criticise or slag off? I don't know anything about Peter Kay beyond he makes me laugh... Hence he does what he get sets out to do.. of course he makes money.. don't we all want to?

The talk page is a forum of sorts.. the article page is not. And calling anyone a moron because they don't agree with you is.. cheap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterM88 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace

I think we're all agreed on Farnworth, Bolton. There seems to be a problem as to whether we describe this as in Lancashire, as it was when Kay was born, or in Greater Manchester, as it now is. By analogy, I believe Nebuchadnezzar was born in Babylon and not in Iraq; however, we don't have Neb's birth certificate as a source. However, we do have, if we need it, Kay's birth certificate, which will describe Farnworth as being in Lancashire, because however prescient the local registrar may have been, only the facts will have been recorded. Accordingly, I suggest that we stick with the facts, and describe Kay's birthplace as Lancashire. Of course, I'm open to cogent arguments, unused as I am to seeing them here. --Rodhullandemu 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As regards whether Peter was born in 'Lancashire' or 'Greater Manchester' it's quite simple enough, he was born in 'Lancashire' because at the time of his birth, 2 July 1973, 'Greater Manchester' did not exist (It came into being on 1st April 1974 - absolute fact). So if he was born in Farnworth, he was born in 'Farnworth, Lancashire' and not 'Farnworth, Bolton'. Until 31 March 1974 Farnworth was a self governing borough quite separate from Bolton. And at Peter's birth (July 1973) the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton would not come into effect until 1st April the following year (1974) when Farnworth was absorbed into it as with other smaller towns such as Kearsley etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.67.172 (talk • contribs)

Definitely correct. I am a couple of years older than Kay and was born in Farnworth, Lancashire. My brother 3 years younger than him was born in the same hospital in Farnworth, Bolton, Greater Manchester — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.41.41 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Forget the above about 'Bolton' because Bolton is totally wrong for time of his birth (1973). Please read on... Prior to 1st April 1974 Farnworth was completely separate from Bolton. Peter was born (1973) when Farnworth was a self governing Municipal Borough (Municipal Borough of Farnworth). Before 1st April 1974 Bolton was a 'County Borough' (County Borough of Bolton) which did not include Farnworth. Farnworth became part of the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton from 1st April 1974 well after Peter's birth. 'Farnworth' is correct, 'Bolton' is wrong. Please do not change to Bolton. Simples!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.143.40 (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Point 13, who criticised him?

Point 13... I have read this article and it does not say who criticised him. Does this mean if anyone puts things on the internet it can be included on wikipedia? This is meant to be a informed encyclopedia not a rumour mill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshee72 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"repeatedly re-releasing the same material onto DVD"

I have now removed this material twice, [2], and will continue to do so if other people revert me. Customers reviews on amazon, hmv etc are not a reliable source. End of story. Feel free to consult any experienced wikipedian, or the reliable sources noticeboard, they will tell you the exact same thing. If the criticism is true then you will be able to find it in a source which is actually reliable such as reviews of the dvd's by actual professional reviewers--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Record

Wiki entry says "His last stand-up comedy tour was officially inaugurated into the Guinness World Records as the most successful of all time, playing to over 1.2 million people." While an article about Mario Barth says "The solo shows sold 1.7 million tickets." Reasearch could be needed. 85.178.68.211 (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)