Talk:Peaches Geldof/Archive 1

Archive 1

Birthdate

The birthdate given here is highly dubious - according to most sources, Peaches Geldof is 16 years old, so she can't have been born in 1990 as the article states. AdorableRuffian 00:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There are other sources dating from 2004 which state she was 14, on there other hand. I couldn't find any sources to back up her birth date (of september 17 1990), and I find it unlikely that that was her date of birth because it would mean Paula Yates committed suicide on her daughter's birthday, and I'm sure that would have been written somewhere before now. By the way, some sources (ie. BBC news about Paula's death) state that Peaches was 10 when was she died. -- Joolz 01:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

England & Wales birth index says she was born in May/June 1989.[1] --Fallout boy 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The birth index lists people at the month after they were born, based on looking up celebs whose birthdays we know. Peaches is listed as June 1989, so that means she was probably born in May. Also, fanmail.biz (celebrity fan mail address database) says her birthday is 16 May 1989. Stephe1987 02:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Sumpter

The section of the article dealing with Peaches and Jeremy Sumpter seems incredibly dubious. A cursory google for various facts turns up very little regarding the situation and even less regarding Peaches' - er - sexual morality. Given the lack of even a tabloid article speculating on the 'relationship', the fact that Peaches has refused to discuss even the topic of sex ("Peaches doesn't talk much about [sex] (too embarrassing)", according to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1469020,00.html">The Guardian</a>) publically and that the only attribution for any of these charges are forums dedicated to Mr. Sumpter, can we assume that it's all a bit of slanderous rubbish?

Any comments before I get rid of the paragraphs? -idp

Citation needed

Several commentators in the British media have expressed "concern" about Peaches' revealing outfits and party lifestyle

Which commentators? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes as of 25/10/05

Changes to the article were made, namely a revert to the content that included Jeremy Sumpter, which was removed due to it being not enclyclopedic and/or doubted information. I reverted these... I hope there are no objections. Not only that, but things such as the article being stubbed correctly were lost... thus my revert. Deskana 21:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Simply not worthy of an entry

She is Sir Bob's daughter and has a column with a national newspaper. So what. This entry simply does not merit inclusion on such limited grounds. It should be merged with the entry on Bob Geldof.

So hop to it. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah}

I'd also like to see what evidence there is of her notability. There are plenty of other TV presenters, columnists, socialites, DJ's, girlfriends, fashion models, and allegedly wastrel children of the rich and famous, yet who clearly aren't worth mentioning in an encyclopedia; why her? (This is not a rhetorical question. If she is notable, she should have an article here and it should mention why she's notable.) VisitorTalk 08:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rhetorical question - is Paris Hilton notable?? i'd say clearly yes in spite of being famous for being famous. Significant media coverage of an individual can be a phenomena in itself - through which someone becomes notable. You want non-notable subject matter? Have a look at some of the articles of local secondary schools or minor Pokemon characters etc. Possibly non notable IMO, but people feel they have a place on Wikipedia

"Criteria for notability of people

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

   * The person has been the subject of published[1] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.[2]
         o If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
         o Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[3]
         o Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.
   * The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.
   * The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
   * The person has demonstrable wide name recognition
   * The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[4]
   * Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products"

I'd say she fufils two of these

3tmx 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely needs more content and to be rewritten?

I'm not sure what Peaches has done with her life but perhaps details of her early life should be in the article, rather than speculation about "suggestive comments" at Live 8?

Would a photo be possible if she is under 18? Or are there legal issues (other than copyright)? James.kendall 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper reports Wiki Vandalism as fact!

A British tabloid paper, the Daily Mail has published an article about why Peaches Geldof hates her name.[2]

But they've falsely copied her name as it was on here for several months until corrected. Look at the page history before December 9th. Uberisaac 19:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not clear in what you're trying to say. Are you saying that Peaches Honeyblossom Michelle Charlotte Angel Vanessa Geldof is her full real name and should be added back in? I saw that article in the paper today. Should we add it back in then? Deskana (talk page) 20:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears that whoever edited the page on dec 9th, removing the middle names, knew what they were doing. I couldn't say though who's correct. Uberisaac 13:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering googling her supposed name gives only results related to that news article, it seems they have just copied it off Wikipedia. Hehehe.... Deskana (talk page) 17:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Every other site except this one has her long name. I am thinking that the chances of Peaches having one middle name are very unlikely, considering the full names of her three sisters. I think that the person who edited it on December 9th either made a mistake or assumed she had one middle name like most people, without further looking into her family history with names of their children. And even recent news articles about her have her long name in them. As unusual as it may seem to the rest of us, I think that Peaches Honeyblossom Michelle Charlotte Angel Vanessa Geldof really is her name. =) Stephe1987 11:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

When I originally searched for her full name on Google, all I got were copies of that news article and copies of the Wikipedia page... which lead me to suggest that it wasn't her full name. There are now more articles... but all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable per the WP:V policy so I'd like to see a reputable source for the fact that it is indeed her name? Thanks. His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but is the source that arbitrarily came in to delete names verifiable? I thought that Wikipedia's policy was to only make changes if the source was verifiable. And considering that all the articles written about Peaches (including ones written after December 9th) say that her name is the long one. Why would they all be wrong and this one unknown person be right? I mean, who are they? Where is their source? I don't even think people were using Wikipedia before, even if the name they used was on here, because they had Peaches listed as being 16 on their site when, at the time, this site had Peaches' age to be 14.Stephe1987 04:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether there was a source for the short name, we do need a source for the full name... if we can't verify the full name it's safe to assume that it isn't her name. His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so we obviously don't have a source for any of her names... I am going to take out her middle name and just leave it at Peaches Geldof until we find out for sure what her middle name(s) is(are). Otherwise this site is just being ridiculous. We really don't have a source for any of her names, and then some random person comes on here and takes out all but one of the middle names that used to be on here, most likely assuming that Peaches, like most people, has one middle name, even though her sisters all have several middle names. Maybe someone should write to Peaches at her fan mail address and find out for sure. Until then, we should only put what we know for sure: Peaches is her first name and Geldof is her last name. No middle names at all until Peaches tells us otherwise... I think that her name wasn't quite as long as it used to be (or maybe it was, but Peaches would know) but she has at least two or three middle names because her sisters all do. Stephe1987 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Some old news articles mention at least her first middle name like this bbc news story for example and this one as well as this ananova article, there's a small possibility the last might be sourced from wikipedia but the use of her first middle name is very widespread, there's no reason to leave that one out at the very least, the editor who removed them all is just quite wrong or misinformed.--Sully 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not misinformed. I removed them all because I was unsure which ones are her real names and which ones weren't. You might want to add those sources to the article. --Lord Deskana (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit was in bad faith and made without reading the previous discussion on the subject, I made the above comment in March. It's now cited.--Sully 13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My edit was not in bad faith, thank you very much. And people wonder why I contribute less nowadays... --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello - I saw Peaches being interviewed on The Richard & Judy Show (UK) a few months ago, Richard gave her name as 'Peaches Honeyblossom Michelle Charlotte Angel Vanessa Geldof.' Peaches nodded in agreement, so it looks like that's her full name. So sorry if I've added fuel to the fire. Vicky (Dec 5th 06)

A guy on everything2 says that he and his friend added the extra names to this article as an experiment, ie, Peaches Honeyblossom Geldof are real names, but Michelle Charlotte Angel Vanessa are not.

• That information is sourced, maybe your guy on everything2 is talking crap? Jdcooper 04:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw her on Big Brothers Little Brother (UK) and Dermot (the presenter) gave her the name 'Peaches Honeyblossom Michelle Charlotte Angel Vanessa Geldof' to which she said "not my real name". I also found this article [[3]]. I am planning to change name back to Peaches Honeyblossom Geldof. Does anyone have any objections?Tulips1 10:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the England & Wales, Birth Index: 1984-2005, which can be searched on the website http://www.ancestry.co.uk, her name is Peaches Honeyblossom Geldof. No other middle names are listed, and I don't think it is simply due to lack of space, as her half-sister's name is listed as Heavenly Hiraani T Hutchence. Presumably if she had more middle names it would say Peaches Honeyblossom M Geldof. JenniferF71 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Socialist?

Is she a socialist or a socialite? I know Bob's a supporter of Labour, but if we ever see the Red flag flying over Buckingham Palace... Peaches will be one of the first to get hung from a lamppost. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.167.91 (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

If people keep changing that they will meet a swift and decisive end. This page is a magnet for vandals. I'm getting less and less reluctant about blasting people without warning if they vandalise it. --Deskbanana 16:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Socialism has nothing to do with hanging people form light posts, that would be more in common with fascism. Diabolical 21:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

myspace

Removed link to myspace as a) a private profile, so not generally accessible b) how do we know its hers? 3tmx 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

anonymous IP 1) wikipedia has a policy of not linking to private websites - i have to be a member of myspace AND her friend to view 2) 'her agent' told 'you' so what - do you understand what a citation is?

3) You've linked to TWO different "official peaches geldof' addresses in as many days which makes you slightly less than credible. 3tmx 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

see WP:EL 3tmx 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

if you actually bothered to goto the Trash Pussies myspace, you'd see contact details for the booking agent. 'her agent' didn't just 'tell me', you condescending fool http://www.insanitygroup.com represents Peaches. Email them. Don't just remove things without any facts. Also Wikipedia links to thousands of personal and private myspaces

Peaches largest fansite on the web also links to the myspaces http://groups.msn.com/peachesgeldofonline/peacheslinks.msnw and why do you only remove my edits when there is a supposed unverified link reference to the new testament party crew myspace. even tho it is a real myspace, why didn't you remove it? where is your source? huh?

You were warned about getting blocked, there you go - you got what you wanted 3tmx 11:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Firstly, I have slightly cleaned up the format of this discussion, hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes but it looked ugly. Second, it appears we have a choice. Either we link to myspace or we do not. Clearly, we should not, since WP:EL and overwhelming consensus tells us we should not, especially in the case of personal ones, and ones that, as noted by 3tmx, require friendship to even be viewed. Clearly there is no useful information to be gleaned by this myspace, therefore it should not be linked to. Given that we are not going to link to Ms Geldof's personal myspace, all reference to it should be removed. If it is to stay, it should be at least visible (that is what i was trying to do previously 3tmx) but I have now removed it, per WP:MOS, WP:EL and WP:RS, whichever you prefer to adhere to. Problem solved? Ok. Jdcooper 17:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Here is a reference if anyone can use it for the article. Eagle Owl 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nice one, thanks very much, I've added it where applicable. Jdcooper 02:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Media figure"

What exactly is meant by the term "media figure" in the lead? VisitorTalk 08:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Biography

"Growing up with her family in Chelsea" is a phrase that can be deleted.

Her education goals are not encyclopedic; if she actually attends NYU, that could be mentioned.

The date of her leaving home is not notable. Is her new neighborhood notable, or would it be enough to say, "After leaving home in 2007 she now lives in London?" VisitorTalk 08:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've altered the parts you mentioned, apart from leaving in the bit about where she grew up; mentioning of that fact is commonplace, and I would have said crucial, on detailed wikipedia biographies? Jdcooper 06:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: The following is copied from my userpage[4]. Risker (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Peaches Geldof

Hello Risker, thanks for editing the Peaches Geldof article, but why did you throw out the important link which I added to it? The whole controversy is, that she was shown in HELLO! Magazine in three dresses which were later claimed to be fakes. The link that I added substantiated this. It seems to be obvious that Ms Geldof was pranked and that is what the extract of the edit should reflect. You cannot make that clear in three sentences. And you just made the claimed Monroe worn dress appear real and authentic with your edit. Please correct and put back the link. I agree with you that I posted to much on Travilla but that can be fixed without losing the importance of the articles which you simply removed. Thank you. -- Weareallone (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. The article is about Peaches Geldof, not about the dresses. The dresses are peripheral to the fact that she was on the cover of Hello Magazine - only her appearance in the magazine is relevant to her article. The rest of the stuff has nothing to do with Peaches. The hypothetical controversy about the dresses is immaterial to her appearance on the cover of the magazine; the controversy did not occur relative to her appearance. The controversy was relative to the dresses appearing elsewhere. Risker (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You would be correct if the article was mainly about Ms Peaches Geldof, but the article was about the dresses she wore. Have you read or seen the article at all? The people behind the exhibition claimed that Ms Geldof was wearing originals, made by Travilla and worn by Monroe. Your edit actually is supporting this claim which is not why I posted this information. One may argue that Ms Geldof with her celebrity status has, unknowingly supported a hoax. Remember that they charged people to look at the claimed to be Monroe worn costumes in Brighton. So the crime, if proven has already been committed. My edit is not accusing Ms Geldof of such action. But in my opinion she was pulled and used to sell a false product, a false exhibition. I did not get your reply and edited down my previous post and put back the media link which is important to at least give the reader the chance to realize that there were doubts. Ms Peaches Geldof obviously believed that the dresses she wore were real, but so did another British model, who was fooled, just like Peaches Geldof was: http://www.laracroftonline.com/news/tr_models.php Read this article and realize the WATH model Lucy Clarkson even mentioned makeup which she thought was Monroe's, yet knowing that Peaches Geldof wore the same dress there is a great chance it was Geldof's makeup. I hope you can agree on my last edit, thank you. Please feel free to work the Lucy Clarkson / Travilla article in, but I doubt that is of relevance for the Peaches Geldof article, and that is why I did not include it. -- Weareallone (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about the reference sources you are using. I am talking about the WIKIPEDIA article. That one is only supposed to be about Peaches Geldof and things relevant to her. You are using her article as a coatrack for your issues about these dresses. Not acceptable. The link above does not meet Wikipedia standards as a reliable source, incidentally. Risker (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I am copying this discussion over to the Talk:Peaches Geldof page. Risker (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(Further copy from my userpage[5]) Risker (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there might also be a chance that the makeup originates from the British Marilyn Monroe impersonator Suzie Kennedy who was also wearing the white dress for PR reasons and for a photo shoot. http://www.raievents.co.uk/content/fashion-shows/the-lost-connection.html Since Suzie Kennedy appears to be bustier than Marilyn Monroe and larger in statue and weight, you can do the math I guess yourself. It is very obvious that Ms Geldof was pranked, I never thought or claimed she wore the fakes, knowing they actually were fakes. -- Weareallone (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do find it very relevant that Ms Geldof was pictured on the cover of a yellow press magazine and that she was fooled, that the public was fooled and that Peaches Geldof unknowingly supported this scam with her name. The people who brought out this hoax even charged a shockingly high amount of money to the magazine to photograph Ms Geldof in the costumes which became absolutely questionable. It may have very well have to do with Peaches Geldof, because paying visitors of the hoax paid money to look what Peaches Geldof was modeling in a famous magazine and they trusted the exhibition to be real and authentic of course. Peaches Geldof has unwillingly become part of the hoax. She was used and that will stand for both parties history, the Travilla's and Peaches Geldof's as well. Please do not claim that the dresses she modeled were made by Travilla himself, because that has become highly questionable as well over the course of the past six months as I read into this fascinating exposure of an exhibition scandal which fooled the entire British media. -- Weareallone (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This ANI report might shed some light on those edits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to correct myself at this point, the Travilla hoax was picked up by the worldwide press. So not only the British media, from BBC to Times were reporting on the 'Lost Collection,' but the entire world press. I find that extremely relevant indeed. But one never knows, it might become an attraction on its own, like another prankster made hoax: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4563751.stm -- Weareallone (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The theory you are putting forth is an absolutely classic synthesis (see WP:SYN for further description - it is part of one of our core policies, No original research). The only fact relevant to this article is that Peaches Geldof wore these dresses for a Hello Magazine photoshoot, and she appeared on the cover. There is not a single source that says "Peaches Geldof was pranked." You have pieced together that theory all by yourself. Any other uses of those dresses - worn by others, exhibited for charity, etc - are not relevant to Peaches Geldof. None of this information belongs in the article. Incidentally, I have a problem with you calling Hello "yellow press" as it is more akin to People (magazine) than The National Enquirer. The use of the word "claim" in this paragraph is not acceptable, either, in accordance with our "words to avoid" style guidelines. To be honest, a more realistic argument would be why Geldof's appearance on a magazine cover is noteworthy enough to be included in the article, but since the rest of the article is even less significant, I'm hard pressed not to include it. I will be cutting out all aspects of that paragraph that do not meet Wikipedia policies and style guides. Risker (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, please do not accuse me of doing things that I haven't done. I am referencing the press. I am sorry if the yellow press comment offended you I take that back of course. Fact is, that the gowns Peaches Geldof wore on the cover and inside the magazine have caused a controversy and several media related articles. You did not with one word go into the fact, that it is quite possible that the media was falling for a big hoax. Nothing wrong with it, we all make mistakes, but I stand behind the fact that it is of historic importance. And especially towards the Peaches Geldof article. You cannot print on a national magazine this is a real Monet or Warhol for example when it is not. I hope you do agree with me on that one? Your first edit was absolutely cutting out what happened after Ms Geldof was dressed in costumes which were claimed to be the origianls. Claimed in this case is correct, since it was obvious even in the magazine that there were huge indifferences if you compared the costumes worn by Monroe and the ones worn by Geldof. I am standing behind my last edit and it describes reality as it happened. A celebrity was photographed in what turned out to be a questionable project. The hosting Hotel which came to the savior of the exhibitioner canceled their decision after doubts of authenticity were voiced in public (media), I can imagine that this realization must be uncomfortable for Ms Geldof, but again, we all make mistakes. And it was a mistake, that is my opinion, to claim that a brand new gown is worth a fortune, when the only existing gown is in the hand of another movie star, Ms Debbie Reynolds. All this information is extremely important, especially for the Peaches Geldof article. Some may not agree on that one as well and find it more important to post to which bars and hip spots the Geldof sisters go (like the last link I added which describes the dating claim which was posted by another editor). -- Weareallone (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PPS: Dear Risker, are you stating that just because Peaches Geldof was photographed in a magazine which you personally obviously (as you defended it in a previous comment) respect, that because of the photographs and article, those claims must be reality? I am not quite sure if I understood your point. You want to cut out the wording claim just because you believe what you read? The facts, and those are existent speak obviously against the printed claims. I am trying as much as possible to stay neutral. That is number one rule for Wikipedia users, or is it not? Having said this, your edit completely and absolutely cut off and threw out the happenings and historical details in this particular matter. Fact is that the Hilton canceled the exhibit. Fact is also that the dresses worn by Ms Geldof differ from the ones worn by Monroe. Which brought me to the conclusion that there is something irregular to the norm going on, happening right in front of your eyes. In my opinion, without losing my goal to remain neutral, I feel that Peaches Geldof was pulled into something that is uncomfortable, since she obviously herself believed that she was wearing Marilyn Monroe's worn movie costumes. Anybody would be disappointed indeed. -- Weareallone (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Weareallone, it is very simple. If you wish to write an article about Hoax Marilyn Monroe Costume Display, you are free to do so. The reference sources you have identified would more correctly belong in such an article. I would not interfere with your writing such an article, and other editors will judge the article's value; I won't even touch it. The controversy, however, does not involve Peaches Geldof. She is not named in any articles you've identified that discuss the alleged hoax. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and your conclusions, but your personal observations do not belong in a Wikipedia article. Only a published report in an independent, third party reference source directly linking Peaches Geldof by name to the alleged hoax is a valid reason for including this information in the article. Risker (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Risker, I really appreciate your kind suggestion and if I had the time I certainly would consider it. But my editing projects are standing in no comparison to a new article. I just went into the article about the artist Banksy and realised that "I Gotcha' was written incorrectly. Those are minor edits and spell corrections and we need people looking out for those, but we also need to be careful to close ourselves completely to other editor's efforts and opinion. Again, you find it irrelevant what I added, the other gossip supporting link of Peaches Geldof dating was never removed from you. And that story was not mainly about Peaches at all. So you see, in the case of the Peaches Geldof connection to a hoax it is important for explanatory reasons to keep the other links. Or else it will really look like your edit which gives two thumbs up to still questionable photo shoot with Peaches Geldof. Why do you think that the people who created this project did not stick with the Monroe impersonator or the other model? Because Peaches Geldof is British celebrity and that is why she made onto the cover of a by you respected magazine. For Wikipedia the attention span on Peaches Geldof has immediately extended, since she was part of a big project which was also questioned by the media, after it has been officially already been accepted. All this is, and I will support my last edited version again, important to Peaches Geldof's own history since it displays how a celebrity status was abused to get attention for a hoax. I have no time or interest and don't feel ready and qualified to write a complete article, but I feel qualified enough to add important info, that is how mainly all articles have come together, or am I wrong? Regards -- Weareallone (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Risker, I just changed the description of the Hello! magazine from "supermarket tabloid" to "weekly published celebrity and gossip focused magazine," and I hope this change is to your satisfaction. However, I must share with you that I was able to purchase the issue which was claiming that Ms Geldof is actually wearing the iconic white Monroe worn dress, in my local supermarket. Hoping that this issue can be solved in a for all satisfying manner and way. -- Weareallone (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lovelife

Hey everyone, please when editing regarding Geldof's lovelife can we make sure we dont just change the name of the person she is "currently dating", but make sure the new reference is placed in the right place, the old wording is changed, and the passage in general is updated properly. References are pointless unless they are placed next to the information they support. Cheers! Jdcooper (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidents in retail outlets

There have now been two incidents of "misunderstandings" involving Miss Geldof in retail outlets, in October 2006[6][7] and April 2008[8] respectively. This seems worthy of coverage, whichever way you look at it. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Go for it!, Jdcooper (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And another one yesterday reported on the Popbitch board by someone who witnessed it, but promptly removed by the moderators, suprise, surprise. 86.133.212.100 (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Suicide

Any mention of her recent suicide? It's just been on the news that she's died of a drugs overdose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.236.122 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like she's still kicking. Should probably add a line or two about the incident though. Thanks for the heads-up. Skomorokh 02:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Marriage

[9]

It would appear little miss peaches has now been married, something should definitely be added about this.

81.155.138.87 (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

'Amicably ended' is rather an incomplete description. I think they more-or-less admitted they married as a gimmick, and that it was never expected to last. 86.144.43.101 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Druuuuuuugggggs

Hey I just read this page and was surprised to see no mention of http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/showbiz/article4798.ece , and http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2008/05/06/seven-major-celebrities-could-face-cop-questions-over-cocaine-ring-115875-20406969/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by IndieStonerKid (talk • contribs) 18:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Known for" in infobox..

"Known for: Zilch" - see infobox. I don't know enough about her to correct that, but I can't imagine it's technically correct... 86.183.171.32 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 14:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Peaches and Scientology

Peaches has said that she is a follower of the Scientology faith since 2008. I just saw Peaches say this on a documentary [10] I was looking for a citation but they are all a bit weak, the original was in the Mirror, anyone know anything about it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to the official documentary site:[11]. The episode is here on the ITV player:[12]. Here's two sources to confirm that she did say that she is a Scientologist in the doc:[13][14]. I just started watching it and she also says she reads L. Ron Hubbard's sci-fi books and is 'a total sci-fi geek'. Fences&Windows 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well found Fences, if no one else adds them, I will tomorrow. I watched the program today and couldn't believe my ears..well I could really as with her wedding I don't imagine it will last long. Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Transcript by me of the section of the interview starting about 33:10, may contain slight errors: Q: "So apparently you're now a lesbian Scientologist?". A: "Well, I'm, I am a Scientologist, I've been a Scientologist for a while now, yeah, I mean, it's [... breaks off to talk to waiter] 'Cause, it's like given me, I might as well be open about it [... Fearne says it's hard to talk about religious beliefs as it's personal] I know but it's like I really, like, I don't know like, it's something that I agree with, and it's something that, um, it's like, I didn't, it's like, it's difficult to explain, it's like I was confused about what, uh, path to go through, and I felt like I needed to have a spiritual path, and I was thinking about it a lot and looking at different things, and like you know, like I always kind of felt I didn't have, like I was lacking something when I didn't have a faith. Bascially it's just, it's like ideas with pop psychology, like L. Ron Hubbard's ideas are to do with the mind, and, um, and in the end like all it's about, Scientology, is making yourself a better person, that's all it's about. It's just about working through stages, and working with other people to, like, to be, to find like a calm person. It's really helped me in that way. And I do have good friends who are Scientologists. [Q: Are her family Scientologists?] No, they're not Scientologists, but they're fine with it. My father says anything that makes me happy and makes me feel like a better person is good [Q: When did she start getting into it?] Two years ago, yeah." Fences&Windows 01:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't sound remotely like a rational affirmation of a serious belief in Scientology. Does anyone know if the "Church" has actually claimed Peaches as one of their own? Nick Cooper (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Peaches axed by Ultimo

It seems Peaches has now lost the Ultimo modelling contract mentioned in the article, and she's to be removed from all shops and window displays.[15][16][17][18][19] This story, involving photos released on the Internet and claims of heroin use, has now probably reached the level where it's worth a mention in the article. It is important to stress that her lawyer has denied claims she was taking drugs. I should mention that I semi-protected the article recently, not as a means to keep this story out, but due to the other poor quality edits going on. There seems to be no reason not to mention the effect of this story on her career. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The loss of the ultimo works could be mentioned but if your suggesting we add, and there were unconfirmed rumors that she injects heroin, I object to that completely, if you want to add something then present your desired edit here for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. The alleged use of heroin is being widely reported as the reason for her sacking. Reporting that as the reason does not validate the claim, but omitting a reason for the sacking will just look stupid. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5i5ZnqJlPRmLIsFJRUOWVgVRKlFqQ

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1262049/Peaches-Geldof-axed-face-body-Miss-Ultimo-lingerie-naked-pictures-scandal.html

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/ultimo-drops-peaches-geldof-amid-drug-use-claims/3011690.article

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Peaches-Geldof-axed-after-heroin.6189273.jp

http://showbiz.sky.com/peaches-geldof-axed-over-nude-pics

In March 2010 after topless pictures of Geldof taken at a party were posted on the internet one of her employers ultimo said she was setting a bad example to their young female audience and immediately ordered pictures of Miss Geldof to be removed from their window displays, website and department stores where their brand is sold. Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was a party, by most definitions. If this was merely about topless photos I doubt the story would have had this effect. No, the stories referred to by Ultimo in their statement, and by all media sources reporting this story, relate it most definitely to allegations of heroin use. It would be a bit silly not to mention this, along with the denials from her lawyer of course. We can reliably source and report neutrally on the allegations which have had such an effect on her career. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ultimo did not say or even metion for the notablle reason for terminating the contract anything about any drug use, it should not be mentioned either. As I said, present something that you think is a good addition..... Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're being disingenuous. There have been a number of topless photographs of Geldof that have previously appeared in the press (e.g. the well known "beach" series), which were clearly not an issue for Ultimo in the past. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that? This could just have been the final straw. Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a statement from ultimo that they terminated her for her alleged drug use? Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Geldof herself is quoted: "I am disappointed that Ultimo has decided not to extend my contract based on a wildly exaggerated account of a night in Los Angeles five months ago. Whilst I vehemently deny parts of that account, I understand Ultimo's decision."[20] It's the media outlets that mention the allegations of heroin, while Ultimo just reference the media. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a statement from ultimo that they terminated her for her alleged drug use? Actually from the citations it is complete synth to suggest that Ultimo sacked her because of her alleged heroin injecting. Ultimo are very careful not to do that as without proof that she has done that they would not be able to say that, there is only this persons sold story that she injected or used heroin at all, according to claims in a story he sold to the papers made by (not notable name here) he said Geldof used heroin. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact that much of the UK press has clearly made this connection, and Ultimo do not appear to have denied it. Wikipedia is not censored, after all, and we are not in the business of being PR proxies for biography subjects. Coupled with the total absence of Geldof's successful libel action against the newspaper claim that she worked as a prostitute that even the BBC can bring itself to report, this page looks suspisciously whitewashed. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are other stories you want to add, or feel are missing, it would be better if that was in a separate section as this will get messy, regarding this issue, what do you offer for inclusion then? Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We fired Miss Geldof for her alleged heroin use, not for the naked pictures. (92.9.82.167 (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Have you got a citation to support that, none of the citations above support that. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been numerous times when Geldof was photographed topless or naked in the past. What made this time different is the fact that she was allegedly injecting heroin, and was photographed looking "high". (92.9.82.167 (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

She was looking high, that is about the truth of it. Ultimo said this ...she was setting a bad example to their young female audience. If someone has a desired addition please present it and the supporting citation for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

She was previously investigated for buying drugs in May 2008. (92.9.82.167 (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Investigated by who?, what happened? Have you got a citation to support that? Off2riorob (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, just check online, there are loads of articles about it. (92.9.82.167 (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

It is your job to present it here, actually if you claim extreme things about a living person on a talkpage you should not do it unless you also present a citation to support your claim, please take care what you say about a living person and if you assert anything only do it with a citation. Actually your the same carphone wharehouse account that was blocked for similar comments on suunday, please stop with such comments.Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

She was investigated and interviewed by the police under caution. The relevant video is online.[21][22][23][24] The media suggest she wouldn't have been prosecuted due to lack of evidence, similar to the Kate Moss story. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/1146292/Peaches-Geldof-quizzed-by-cops.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-563938/Peaches-Geldof-facing-police-interview-filmed-handing-cash-drug-dealer-stars.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1261274/Peaches-Geldof-Internet-scandal-Ben-Mills-expelled-uni-threat-kill-girl.html

http://showbiz.sky.com/Peaches-Drug-Update

Is there anything you are actually presenting for inclusion? Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased fans trying to own the article?

Off2riorob (a rabid fan? a close friend?) seems to have almost single-handedly transformed this article from a humble one to a full-blown celebrity article. He also seems to be extremely protective and controlling about it. I'm on WP for almost 5 years and I rarely saw such (misplaced) passion here. The bottom line is that we all know that her career does not deserve such a detailed encyclopedic entry.
This pretty important line has also mysteriously vanished from the article: "Geldof has received criticism for perceived nepotism, her party lifestyle, sometimes perceived as wild and self-destructive..." etc.
That is all. Gregorik (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not a friend or fan at all, although I do like her tattoos. My edit history to this article is more involved in reverting uncited additions and vandalism. Perceived nepotism? Is it notable perception? Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I dunno if it's notable. Anyway, my bad for singling you out then. It may have been anon editors who've bloated the article. My apologies to Bob Geldof, Peaches and Off2riorob. Gregorik (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Alledged Heroin use claim

The claim is supported by a newspaper article, which contains the direct quote "It comes days after US artist Ben Mills, 23, posted nude photos of Peaches on a website - and claimed that he enjoyed a wild night of sex and heroin with her in Los Angeles. "

Whether the "webpage" in question is facebook or not is not the debate, nor is the debate whether she was sacked by Ultimo for drug use - the debate is that a sequence of events happened to Peaches, and that sequence of events is alledged to have included heroin use. That was reported by a reliable source - The Sun, and no amount of reverting will remove the fact that it happened the alledgement (if that's even a word) happened. Why are you removing the alledged event, but happy to leave in the reference? a_man_alone (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• The Sun should actually never be used to support any content never mind controversial claims, and although these claims are in lower class publications we are not obliged to propagate them, if the claim is in the citation that is totally different to publishing content from within the cite here on wikipedia, if people want to read all the unconfirmed titillations they can go read the Sun, I also would be happy to remove the Sun as a citation but it is not imperative, leaving it is a kind of compromise.Anyway the unconfirmed allegations should not be included as perWP:BLP they had no impact on anything and they are unconfirmed, and were originally posted on a facebook page, the unconfirmed allegations of drug use were not quoted at all in the reason for the subjects loss of the contract by the ultimo company in its statement. We are requested to write conservatively with do no harm as a consideration. If you want to replace the unconfirmed claims of drug use then I suggest you open a thread at the WP:BLP noticeboard for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, Geldof successfully suing The Sun for libel closes the matter, doesn't it? Except, hang on... she never even attempted to do that, did she? 16:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Nick Cooper (talk)

As far as I understand it, BLP does not allow or encourage editors to post unconfirmed controversial claims from low quality sources as long as the subject of the BLP has not taken legal action against the source. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

But it's not unconfirmed is it? The allegations are in a national, if not international, newspaper. Your opinion that The Sun is a low quality source and can be discarded out of hand is just as controversial, and frankly shows a both worrying and narrow mindset. a_man_alone (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Sun

The Sun also recently claimed to have a picture of her taking part in a 6 person orgy, was that shopped or did it turn out to be true?. 90.219.225.104 (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if it were true, her sexual preferences are not notable here. Off2riorob (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)