Talk:Peaches Geldof

Times list 2011 - uncited

I moved this from the article as I couldn't find an WP:RS for it. can anyone else find one? Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

She was named to the London Times "25 Most Powerful Young People in Britain" list on 21 May 2011, at the age of 22.

'Career'

Might be helpful for her last project (OMG!) to have some information about how it was received? Think this would be constructive in how the subject lives today (i.e. no more tv, it would seem, for the time being) --94.173.22.24 (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - in general the career section is disproportionately short. Also, it seems mostly about one lingerie contract (the details of which I would guess involves a commercial source) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.100.204 (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Location

Hell? Who put that in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.185.80 (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandals. Page will be protected soon. — Wyliepedia 17:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrotham is not in North London - it's in Kent (not far from Maidstone).

Vandalism

It is saddening to see that this page presumably have been subject to vandalism, less than 24 hours after her death. --Skippern (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Less than that, 55 minutes since the announcement, I think making it semi-protected is a good move.AnarchoGhost (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

In a similar fashion as to what happened here... --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2014

109.146.40.179 (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

'in spunk' - check and remove

Death

I added the date of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.92.193 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"That wild"

The source clearly shows the quote is from her, not her father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.37.191 (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. 24.97.201.230 (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

2010 religion

Peaches Geldof was a Scientologist in 2010 - http://gawker.com/5502453/peaches-geldofs-heroin-fueled-one-night-stand-at-hollywoods-scientology-centerwith-pictures 24.97.201.230 (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

pretty thin. --Malerooster (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Really now? --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Malerooster- Peaches says she is a Scientologist in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKYn5xAfHKQ 24.97.201.230 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)24.97.201.230 (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

youtube is not a reliable source. --Malerooster (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was just told that youtube is a reliable source. Talk:Indiggo#No_reliable_source_says_Indiggo_sisters_are_American 24.97.201.230 (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was also told that, in 2012, over 70,000 wikipedia articles used youtube as a source. 24.97.201.230 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)24.97.201.230 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You were told wrong. Seriously, we should use the best reliable sources when editing bios. --Malerooster (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, 24.97.201.230, if someone on WP tells you that a video of someone discussing their religion isn't a reliable source of that person's religion you gotta accept it. This is WP afterall, the biggest missed opportunity there ever was! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.80.242 (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
To 77.100.80.242- if you read the Peaches Geldof wikipedia article, there are a bunch of sources after the Scientology claim. 24.97.201.230 (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)24.97.201.230 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, my previous sentence was to Malerooster, not 77.100.80.242 lol --24.97.201.230 (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Scientologists should be added. (Sources used: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2009/oct/29/peaches-geldof-scientologist and http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a184232/peaches-scientology-makes-me-happy.html) 24.97.201.230 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Object - I was reading a lot of reports that Peaches had gone away from Scientology, towards her husbands Judaism and to Crowley and his Magik Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Please cite your sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

there are lots and lots of them - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2599517/From-Scientology-libertine-cult-Ordo-Templi-Orientis-OTO-How-Peaches-obsessed-occult-spiritual-study.html - Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

THe Daily Mail isn't remotely a reliable source for claims like these. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ow ok, there will be some reliable ones out there, the fact remains that the detail claiming she was a scientologist requires updating, according to all the recent reports about her, she had moved away from that Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Find the sources and it can be updated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/shortcuts/2013/apr/15/peaches-geldof-aleister-crowley-sex-cult-oto - Ordo Templi Orientis http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10751003/Peaches-Geldof-obituary.html n 2009 she declared that she was “a Scientologist. I feel like I needed a spiritual path. I felt I was lacking something when I didn’t have a faith.” ...... She later flirted with elements of Judaism and then, last year, waxed lyrical about “a belief system to apply to day-to-day life to attain peacefulness”. The system in question was the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) — founded in the early 20th century and indelibly linked to the occultist Aleister Crowley. She had the initials OTO tattooed on her left forearm. Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the update. Mosfetfaser (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Jewish

She did not convert to Judaism, she embraced it. Her grandmother was Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.85.220 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion. If you are a Scientologist and then you convert to Judaism, you are a convert. It doesn't matter what religion your grandmother followed. 24.97.201.230 (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)24.97.201.230 (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Judaism is not just a religion -- it can make sense for somebody to be a Christian, an atheist, a Buddhist, or even a Scientologist, and still consider themselves to be a Jew. If Peaches' maternal grandmother was Jewish, Peaches would not have needed to convert to Judaism because the majority of the Jewish community would consider her to be already Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.193.55 (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That is absolutely correct. Similar issues of affinity as a basis of identity come up in deciding whether to describe her as English (based on location) or Irish (based on family connection), which is why I corrected the description of her as English to British (which is safer all round). I have given more detail at User_talk:A_bit_iffy#Peaches_Geldof_edit, as a preliminary to undoing that user's revert to "English", in case he or she has something else to add. PMLawrence (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the "Jewish question" is a sensitive one, and unless you take some sort of ultra-orthodox view it's very clear that Jew = an ethnicity and religion. Question for you PMLawrence, and this is interesting to me as I grew up in an obscure area of England and have mixed ancestry, would you apply your rule to say, someone who was born in Wales to English parents? I don't see how describing her as anything but English is "unsafe" - she was born and raised there and seems to of spent her entire life in England. Most mixed-ethnicity England-born-and-bred people I come across identify as English with some pride (of varying degrees) in their ethnicity. But I do completely understand and appreciate your point, just saying not everyone feels the same way. --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@PMLawrence: "England" and "Ireland" are two VERY different countries. Swapping to the term "British" is likely to cause MORE upset. All very messy complicated issue as N.Ireland is part of the UK, but not part of Ireland. And Ireland is certainly NOT British. (Really - you don't want to get into that minefield of religious politics). If her passport says "English", then call her English. If the passport is "Irish", then call her "Irish". NEVER call someone from Ireland "British". 86.10.167.123 (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point IP 86. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that there are no "English passports", only British. If you are English, Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish, you are, like it or not, British.--ukexpat (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And another good point from Ukexpat! --Somchai Sun (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think among you you have brought out most of the salient factual matter, and the only problems come from not realising that what seems an obvious conclusion is actually resting on unexamined assumptions that beg the question, i.e. bring the conclusion in without realising it. I described British as "safer" because it is the generic nationality for the U.K. and because those who identify as English are generally happy enough with it, unless there is some specific point about being English as opposed to something else at issue. Somchai Sun's point that 'I don't see how describing her as anything but English is "unsafe" - she was born and raised there and seems to of spent her entire life in England' is the very thing that divides Celtic views of these things from continental European views (which includes the English view). Celts measure these things by affinity and connection, Europeans by place of birth, for reasons of cultural history now lost in the mists of time (my mother was Irish and my father Scottish, and I can distinctly recall my mother saying she was proud I wasn't English - though I was born in London just like her, and have an accent to match; however, I can be picked out by my physiognomy by those who know what to look for, and to my surprise I found that many of my tastes and natural reactions matched up even without overt role models). That automatically makes it wrong to assign identity by location to someone who identifies by affinity. It's why the Anglo-Irish were, in the words of an old saying, "English to the Irish and Irish to the English" - by the Irish test they were English, and vice versa. I once heard that the Duke of Wellington rebutted someone who called him Irish simply because he had been born in Ireland by saying, "Jesus Christ may have been born in a stable, but that didn't make him a horse"; it took me years to realise that he had actually been applying an Irish way of looking at things, it seemed so normal to me. That is precisely what is wrong with 'NEVER call someone from Ireland "British"' - being "someone from Ireland" isn't what makes someone Irish, any more than the Duke of Wellington was, though forming a connection to Ireland on the back of coming from there would do it just as someone can become Jewish by forming the right connection and affinity to Judaism ("converting"). Even putting it that way is building in the conclusion that location is what counts, which is the very point at issue. Oh, and to answer the earlier question, someone who was born in Wales to English parents would be reckoned English by the Welsh and Welsh by the English, and so would have no coherent way of self-identifying that was consistent with the norms of either culture; it isn't a matter of applying "my rule" there at all, as that rule is about avoiding the problem by calling such a person British. Interestingly, the whole Scottish referendum thing has an element of reinventing identity by location to it, which makes it a poor match for the culture whether its adherents realise it or not - but that's too much digression for this talk page. PMLawrence (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're saying somewhat, but can we have a paragraph or two? ;__; By the way, the Duke of Wellington has been misappropriated to that quote, it was actually said by an Irish republic politician some 40 or so years after his death. But there is something I strongly disagree with you on: "someone who was born in Wales to English parents would be reckoned English by the Welsh and Welsh by the English" - Personally I do not care about silly ethno-nationalism and using ethnicity to form "special clubs" in order to divide people and create tension, but from my experience your quote couldn't be further from the truth in many instances! Take a look at the Christian Bale article for instance, there have scores of Welsh people coming to the article arguing that he is Welsh despite leaving the country at a very young age and being born to English parents! Crazy isn't it? --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the (non)paragraphs - I was in too much haste to want to preserve the indenting the hard way. On the Welsh claiming someone as Welsh on the back of a tenuous connection, well, in Celtic cultural terms they aren't doing it as a location thing at all, but by asserting that he acquired Welshness in a way that built on that beginning, so to speak (the point I made about being "from" Ireland doesn't of itself make being Irish but can lead to it). That is, they are mostly citing his place of birth not as the criterion but as the starting point to claim him (since they want him), and then they measure Welshness by connection and affinity that (they argue) had a chance to happen. Of course, some may actually argue on the basis of place - but, if so, they aren't using a criterion that actually stems from that culture, and they are assimilating to Englishness without realising it. That Celtic culture is what allows London Welsh/Scottish/Irish sporting clubs to exist without being a contradiction in terms, and why nineteenth century Welshmen thought that emigrating to Patagonia to preserve their culture made sense (if they had thought that location was the key to everything, they would have thought it a self-defeating enterprise). Yet even affinity-based systems often assign a special, ahem, place to how they regard place, or Zionism would never have focussed its work on the particular geographical area it did; these things tend to reinforce each other and to have similar macro outworkings regardless of the starting point, and it's just at the detailed level that there is a material difference - a level like a person's own self-identification, for instance. BTW, it's now getting late here in Australia, so I won't be following up for a while. PMLawrence (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Peaches's paternal great-grandmother, Amelia Falk, was Jewish. I don't think there's any evidence that Peaches's maternal grandmother, Elaine Smith, was Jewish. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I just removed this that she was Jewish claim from the artilce - en wiki regulations need stronger claims than what I removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peaches_Geldof&diff=604752362&oldid=604745059 to start adding Jewish writer definitions Mosfetfaser (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, that claim should never have been included, sourced as it was to a partisan website. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 07:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Kent Police statement

Added a source for the Kent Police statement, but the official version I found is more paraphrased than quoted. Anyone else have better luck in finding it, otherwise might be better to change that from a direct quote? EmyP (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be a new statement (it's dated today on the Kent Police website) rather than the initial statement being quoted in the article. January (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Cause of Death

Please refrain from reporting the Cause of death until it has been made officially known by the Coroner, doing so before hand is a violation of WP:BLP. Currently newspapers are effectively making educated guesses as to what the coroner will say. The Coroner will report their findings in due course and only then can a cause of death b added and only if the Coroner confirms a cause of death, if the don;t confirm a cause of death then none can be added. This is a similar argument to the addition of a religion to this article. Please refrain from doing so until official confirmation from official sources is made available to the public at large. Sport and politics (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You can get off that high horse now. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Coroner has not confirmed that it was a "Heroin Overdose" stating so is Original Research based sources which are not to be considered anything other than pre-inquest speculation. The Coroner has stated "Recent Heroin use "Played a role" in her death". The Coroner has not said Heroin killed her or she took and overdose. So Stating a "Heroin Overdose" was the cause of death is not confirmed by the Coroner so is speculation until the Inquest rules on the cause of death. That fact needs making clear to prevent that being added prematurely to the article. Sport and politics (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, "Recent Heroin use "Played a role" in her death" is correct reporting at this time . _ Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, the cause of death will not be official until the coroner returns a verdict. This is a good example of why not to make edits on the basis of half-understood breaking news reports. There are also still WP:BLP issues if the media starts speculating about who gave her the heroin etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with above. It's not merely a legal issue. There's a question of the role model itself. To say that Geldof died of a heroin overdose is to glamorise her death for some (while equally confirm expectations for others it would seem), risking copy-cat behaviour amongst vulnerable people. There's no need for Wikipedia to record this until the cause of her death has been confirmed and MSM and social media have debated her (presumed) drug habit. That too is a debate we can eventually record, but Wikipedia is not the place for the debate. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Which is obviously why I used the wording I did. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Coat of Many Colours: et. al. Concur no 'cause of death' on page until reliable source, like the inquest's findings, are available per wp:BLP. AGF, many well meaning IP editors were adding as a fact that Geldof died of a drug/heroin overdose, either un-sourced or poorly sourced media speculation. Which is why I requested semi-protection at wp:RFPP. --220 of ^Borg 08:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Excessive use of images

As per heading, also recent mystifying replacement of a more recent (2012) photograph with yet another from 2009. Do we really need two posed shots that really don't show anything different from each other? I have therefore reverted the image change, and removed the superfluous second posed shot. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, but I think the uploader had a point when he (she) said their upload was a better portrait, and normally that would be an issue up for consensus. But in fact it's not a free image (while the existing one is) and it's already been tagged for deletion since policy is to use free images (and not non-free under a Fair Use rationale) wherever reasonably possible, as is plainly the case here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Peaches Honeyblossom Geldof-Cohen

Name ? Peaches Honeyblossom Geldof-Cohen

I took down the claimed name - there are no reports of the claimed name - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The Geldof-Cohen name is used by the police in their statement referring to her and the police will only use the most official name going so in reality her legal full name is that as stated with the surname Geldof-Cohen. I have re added with a newspaper source quoting the police statement directly. --Sport and politics (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Date of death

Re this edit: Geldof's body was found on Monday 7 April, but from the evidence at the inquest, it is likely but not certain that she died on Sunday 6 April.[1] Contact with Geldof was lost after 8:00 PM on Sunday, and the call to emergency services after the discovery of her body was made at 1:35 PM on Monday. The sourcing does not specifically say that she died on Sunday. The article should clarify this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Name, again

Re this edit. The claim that her full name was Peaches Honeyblossom Michelle Charlotte Angel Vanessa Geldof has found its way into media coverage, but it was denied by Geldof herself.[2] Somehow this has been repeated many times in media coverage, including reliable sources. It is a mystery, and only a legal document with her name would shed some light on the matter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• According to this online search tool, her birth certificate says Peaches Honeyblossom Geldof and she was registered in Westminster, London. I'm reasonably sure that this is correct, and it is a mystery how the media got the idea that she had all of the other names.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Peaches Geldof. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sevenoakschronicle.co.uk/Peaches-Geldof-death-report-inquest/story-21746944-detail/story.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.utvlive.com/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=10080&pt=e
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421013203/http://www.mtvnetworks.co.uk/peaches to http://www.mtvnetworks.co.uk/peaches
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721180409/http://living.oneindia.in/insync/2010/ultimo-dumps-peaches-geldof-310310.html to http://living.oneindia.in/insync/2010/ultimo-dumps-peaches-geldof-310310.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408213951/http://www.kent.police.uk/news/latest_news/140407_wrotham_sudde.html to http://www.kent.police.uk/news/latest_news/140407_wrotham_sudde.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408213951/http://www.kent.police.uk/news/latest_news/140407_wrotham_sudde.html to http://www.kent.police.uk/news/latest_news/140407_wrotham_sudde.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Burial or cremation?

Re this edit: her funeral was at the St Mary Magdalene and St Lawrence Church in Davington on 21 April 2014. However, the sourcing does not say that she is buried there. Find A Grave says that she was cremated, but this is not a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"Found" Vs "Searched"

With regard to the above changes, I'm somewhat against the term "searched" because - as the editor points out - it suggests an intentional and methodical attempt to find what was hidden. This may be the case, but it's not supported by any sources in the article, so I believe the original "found" is a better generic term to simply get across to the reader that drug paraphernalia was in the house.

Also, technically the sentence doesn't make sense using the term "searched" as it states that the police first searched drug paraphernalia, then second seized the drug paraphernalia - "searched and seized drug paraphernalia" The sentence would need rewriting if the one word is to be changed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, mainly because "searched and seized drug paraphernalia" is ungrammatical.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The date of death needs to be properly sourced

The death date for this person needs to be properly sourced. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It is sourced in note a). Her body was found on Monday afternoon, but she may have died on the Sunday evening.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)