Talk:Peaches (musician)/Archive 1

POV discussion
'Her lyrics are discussed as part of the queer-studies course curriculum at the University of Toronto'

The University of Toronto does not have a queer-studies program.

- student


 * A paragraph was added containing some very POV based comments on how "great" Peaches is and how her songs come off like --- romps but are in fact "commentary on gender roles" and "feminist". I originally edited this to be NPOV so it said things like "some may say they are..."; but I then went and looked up the lyrics of her song "Stuff Me Up" which was specifically sited as being one of these songs with a feminist message on gender roles. The lyrics to this song are "I see you stuffing your face, why don't you stuff me up?/Eat a cookie, a big dick, everyday, what?" That's LITERALLY the only lyrics (repeated obviously.) I fail to find a trace of this alleged feminist gender role commentary. So I am forced to believe that whoever added said paragraph originally was just an overzealous fan. I've edited it to reflect what I believe is a more accurate description of her music. Pacian 09:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't really listen to Peaches, but I know my sister does and considers her music to be pretty feminist. ^_^ And I've heard a few other people say similiar things about Peaches, so definately "some" people do make such claims.

What is going on with the Peaches entry? First of all, who are you to decide whether or not the lyrics of ONE song are feminist or not? Secondly, her work is generally considered to be, amongst a small but growing academic following, a great summary of post-feminist theory! And lastly why does the article have a posting about internet rumors!? Can someone please take that off! An "internet rumor" sounds very much like an "urban myth" to me. I have actually spoken to Peaches myself and Merrill is a well adjusted individual that is actually quite softly spoken. Confusion about her gender is the very point her songs are arguing against, there is no gender, it's an illusion of culture. I don't know how to do it, but I would like it if someone could remove that passage please.


 * I don't think it's been proven at all effective to have someone who claims to have been deterred from understanding the overwhelming majority POV amongst Peaches fans that not only her music has feminist undertones but her role in the music industry from one excerpt of a song lyric. I'm not recommending that the neutrality rule be obliterated, but someone who is more familar with Peaches music and career should be put to work on this article to present a more fleshed out representation of her. This article is, frankly, very beige in its scope. Clearly Pacian isn't qualified or informed enough to be the dominant authority of this topic. Grapeflux 03:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I took the time to do what Pacian didn't, and looked at some of Peaches' lyrics in detail - I'm just getting into her music, and have been nothing but impressed with it - and have to say that I think he's talking out of his hat. Firstly, please take into account the possibility that a songwriter might be being ironic. Secondly, to repeat a point already made - you're judging her entire body of work on the basis of one song? Thirdly, the lyrics of many songs - I've made a start here with some from 'The Teaches of Peaches' - are obviously intelligent, self-referential, contradictory and complex, definitely a sign that one should take the time to look at them in more detail. I don't know if anyone is going to agree with what I've put so far, but I'd be interested to see any new additions or comments. One more point: when it comes to analysing other people's words, you can't *not* be POV, unless you happen to be able to read the author's mind. In which case I suggest that here, and elsewhere on Wikipedia, no intepretation is deleted unless it's obviously tripe (i.e. badly written, badly argued and prejudiced - not just something you don't happen to agree with). The more interpretations we can get for any one text or artist, the more rounded a picture the reader of the article is going to get. As I said, I've only made a start here. To be continued...

...Back again. I started a wildly pretentious POV rant, then took the time to read a couple of interviews with Peaches, one of which I've put a link to at the bottom, from which I've extracted a typical statement of her position - not unequivocally feminist, but certainly indicating the thoughtfulness and intelligence that Pacian thought was lacking (I've also made a note of the serious academic interest in her work). There's more to do - analysis of individual songs would be nice, but from my own experience I think it would be hard not to be POV. Big up the Peach. Ooh rah.

i'm almost 100% sure that Peaches is not a "sex change patient", whatever that means. i'm not a user, i'm not logged in, but i just came across this and thought it should be changed. i'll log in later i guess, if no one else does. unless someone can back up this claim with a reference, someone should at least change the wording, since people who choose to change their sex aren't usually called patients for the rest of their lives. -hh74.12.209.77 04:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First, all of your indenting skills suck, making this entire discussion hard to follow. Second, I agree that some of the commenters here are not informed enough, or are overinformed, to determine what the content of Peache's lyrics are.  Her music is subtly anti-didactic, even critiquing the didactic interpretations that we are all fed on a daily basis under the guise of objectivity or schematic analysis.  In that way, it is very rebellious and not simply ludic transgression.  The sexual content is as much a bow to her heritage to the LGTB community, who have turned conservative critiques into a vehicle for expression, as much as an allegory for her anti-patriarchal anti-domination message.  These things said, the opening introduction to this article which reads "...musician whose songs are concerned mainly with sex." is flat wrong, because they are not _concerned_ with sex at all.  There for, I'm changing it to "...musician whose songs are notable for their use of sexual imagery."  That description is more accurate and allows the reader to determine for themselves how the sexual imagery is used, rather than telling them it is used because the songs are concerned with sex.  (which is, incedentally, didacticism.)Winjammer (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * PS-- citing an 'askmen' article for justifying the statement that her songs are _concerned with_ sex is irony. 100% pure irony...Winjammer (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Some People Don't Like Her Crotch
I'd say that line alone was worthy of mention in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayAlto (talk • contribs) 03:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I love it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.37.115 (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Loves it. 72.208.119.115 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

Electroclash
I wouldn't really define her as Electroclash. What do others think?--Geedubber 00:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The Last.FM tag test shows her at #3 under electroclash, but her most prominent tag is "electronic". Genres are fuzzy, I'm not inclined to argue them extensively. --Dhartung | Talk 05:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Accidental revert
I'm sorry I reverted the article to its vandalised state! I'm on a school computer with a filter right now, so I can't fix my mistake, but it's not vandalism, I promise! Burndownthedisco talk 15:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the point?
This article is dominated by a single quote about Peaches' album "Fatherfucker". It really doesn't add anything so I'm wondering what the reason for including it is. I'll give it a few days, maybe one of you who knows her better can explain. If not, out it goes.70.121.7.89 01:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Nunya
 * And yet it's still there, heh. Hmm.  I'll add this article to my watchlist and maybe look into expanding it myself, it does deserve a bit more fleshing out beyond that one bloated quote. Phil Urich 08:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Peaches is quoted here as saying that we call our mothers motherfuckers. The problem here is that she is wrong. We call men motherfuckers. I suppose a woman could be a fatherfucker though. This quote is poorly chosen because it catches her in a mistake or misunderstanding.

Is Peaches a satanist
So in the BLoc Party Remix she repeats 666, anyone know if shes a satanist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.122.82.5 (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
 * I think she isn't a satanist --Göran Smith 00:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, she likes controversial things. Sorchah 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, she's no satanist. With lyrics like "Fuck me from the back, fuck me from the front, finger in my ass, cock in my cunt", she's more into shock.
 * That's not a Peaches song; get your illegally downloaded mp3 library in order. That's a Cherry Bikini song.

Trivia Section
Isn't the trivia section getting a bit to long? Are 16 facts necessary? Tehfreek 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian
Anyone know if she's a dyke? 82.163.34.99 11:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think she's bisexual. (See some of the songs like "I U She".) She say she has "hermaphrodite envy". 71.171.206.251 16:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nisker - Turkish
The name "Nisker" sounds very turkish. Anybody know her father/grandfather etc originated there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.150.2 (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Peaches song inspired Radiohead?
This seems to be true so I left it in but the best source I could find was ; not good enough. It claims that Radiohead mentioned this during an interview "in the August 2006 Mojo magazine". Perhaps someone with access to this magazine can confirm and cite it? --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be legit, since the beat of the songs is similar and comes from a reliable enough source i think it must be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.154.26.195 (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral tone?
The article still reads like an article in a fanmag. And it doesn't really delve into the sexuality/gender identity issues others have raised. I don't know her work well, but the gender I.D. stuff--suitable for queer theorists--is more valuable here than most of this article, which is still very thin. I hope someone takes this on and improves this entry, at least to enforce the neutral POV standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.168.252 (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Peaches Christ Superstar
Shouldn' this be mentioned? It could al least go under collaborations (with gonzales) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.130.10 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin of name
Should it be mentioned that her name is taken form the song "4 women" by Nina Simone ( at the end she sings "they call me... PEACHES!? She says this in several youtube videos and it has appeared in several interviews.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.130.10 (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect from &#8220;feedom&#8221;
&#8220;Feedom&#8221; redirects here, but that word appears nowhere in this article. Can somebody please explain what the word means, and its connection to the subject of the article? Thanks. Bwrs (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

bisexual categories
I couldn't find any sourcing for this; the closest I found was this article, "http://z15 dot invisionfree dot com/Augusta_Alternative/ar/t3013.htm" which states "Widely assumed to be bisexual, she has now been with the same guy for seven years." I think it's clear the world thinks she's bisexual, but unless we have a RS where she comes out an claims this label, we should not use those categories per WP:EGRS, esp: "Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a little ridiculous. This is clear in the sources already referenced. "I mean, I only realised pussy licking was okay once I licked a pussy.". She is also clearly referenced in interviews she participated in as bisexual. Are you trying to prove a point about the category? Because this subject has openly had romantic and sexual relationships with both sexes. I think Diva magazine is a better authority of this than the Times of London. __Elaqueate (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to prove anything - see longstanding debate at Jodi Foster for a similar example. Just as a man sleeping with another man does not allow us to categorize him as gay, a woman who has dated both sexes cannot be categorized as bi - they need to self identify as such, that's the current consensus and guidance - please read the categorization link above if you have issues.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Peaches believes that everyone is inherently bisexual, but she notes with sadness that most men fall into the straight line too fast."
 * This is a public declaration, from years ago, and it's why this page has been stable since then. Jodi Foster hadn't made a public declaration until recently. Peaches has also identified as queer as well, so I maybe we should add those categorizations as well. Thanks. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see it in that source. She's talking about everyone, not that she personally identifies as bi. Some people with bi-behavior never identify themselves as such.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * care to weigh in here? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm, she has behavior, history, identification, and a career exploring her sexuality publicly. And saying that everyone's bisexual and letting Diva label her as bisexual in her interview with her should be considered some indication that she has taken a position on the issue. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've said this entirely too often, but it bears repeating here: there's an important distinction that needs to be grasped when it comes to Wikipedia's coverage of LGBT issues and personalities: strictly speaking, Wikipedia doesn't care a fig about a person's private sexual behaviour — we care about LGBTness only insofar as a person identifies themselves socially, culturally and politically with the LGBT community.
 * A person who is behavourially bisexual can identify as bisexual, or they can reject that word and identify themselves as pansexual or queer or "fluid", or they can identify themselves as lesbian or gay for political reasons, or they can identify themselves as straight (or "heteroflexible") because their same-sex behaviour is purely recreational while their primary relationship mode is opposite-sex — but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, if there's a gap between a person's sexual behaviour and their public identity label of choice, the public identity is what matters and the private behaviour is irrelevant.
 * There obviously isn't any serious doubt that Peaches is behaviourally bisexual, but the sources in question do indeed fall short of demonstrating that "bisexual" (rather than "lesbian who also f*cks men", "pansexual", "queer", "fluid", "heteroflexible" or "I hate labels, just call me sexual") is her identity label of choice. If there's a better source out there in which she uses the word bisexual in reference to her political, social and cultural identity, then by all means bring it on — but a source in which she merely talks about having sex with women doesn't cut it, because sexual behaviour isn't what's relevant to us. Public identity, and only public identity, is. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Peaches (Canadian singer)
There are several musicians called Peaches, (musician) is ambiguous. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The only other musician listed at Peaches (disambiguation) is a person who doesn't have her own standalone article, but exists only as a redirect to the musical duo that she was part of. And she's already hatnoted from this article anyway. At any rate, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies here — to a 21st-century readership, Ms. Nisker is the Peaches that most people would expect to find at this title, and any other "Peaches (musician)" would be a secondary one. Bearcat (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peaches (musician). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116071938/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080208.wgrammy09/BNStory/Entertainment/home to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080208.wgrammy09/BNStory/Entertainment/home
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606174818/http://www.chartattack.com/news/80761/peaches-feist-gonzales-tiga-in-indie-flick to http://www.chartattack.com/news/80761/peaches-feist-gonzales-tiga-in-indie-flick
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110414120014/http://www.urb.com/2010/08/05/peaches-to-release-tribute-to-alan-vega/ to http://www.urb.com/2010/08/05/peaches-to-release-tribute-to-alan-vega/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)