Talk:Julie Peasgood

I've removed a section titled "Video Games" because it is trivial and of little importance to the overall subject matter, and was unreferenced. The content of the section is that she appeared on the Alan Titchmarsh Show on Friday 19 March as part of a section on video games in which she emphasised the negative effects video games can have - but shock horror, hold the front page! she did a voice over for one in 2000. Wikipedia is not a downmarket redtop which exists to impart useless gossip and trivial nonsense about which nobody really cares. Unless this information can be referenced and/or has any other significance beyond being a piece of trivia then it shouldn't be included. I will be taking this to the appropriate places if the information is re-added. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

As stated above, the subject recently appeared in a daytime television show in which she was critical of the negative impact of video games - it since emerges that she appearently did a voice over for one herself some years ago. Information regarding this has beeen added a number of times (usually with POV wording) and deleted by myself and another editor. I'm requesting a third opinion because I don't want to get into a silly edit war over this and would like someone else's view on this. Thanks. TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the reference to the Alan Titchmarsh show is unnecessary and not important enough to be included, but the reference to the "Martian Gothic: Unification" game deserves a place. Here it is on imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419947/ and on wikipedia itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_Gothic:_Unification. There are also numerous reviews at places like gamespot and ign.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.156.12 (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

(Disclaimer: A Third Opinion has been requested in connection with this article or talk page. Although I sometimes act as a Third Opinion Wikipedian, I am participating in this article as just another editor and not as a Third Opinion Wikipedian or under the guidelines set out at WP:3O.) The flap about Peasgood's statements is all over the Web and has, in my opinion, reached enough critical mass to be be mentioned in this article. I've looked, however, and cannot find a reliable source which reports her comments. According to this discussion from the reliable sources noticeboard a television show can be a reliable primary source for comments made by a person, but it has to be available online or in a transcript. The show in question (if the date is correct in this edit) is probably currently available here (I can't be sure because you have to be in the UK to view videos on that site and I'm not), but will no longer be available there after 30 days from airing (though it would be a reliable source until it disappears). While there are dozens of bootleg copies out there of the segment, on YouTube especially, none of them will probably satisfy WP:COPYLINK, so there may be some trouble finding a source which substantiates her comments. If the flap gets big enough, which it shows signs of doing, then it will probably end up in one of the mainstream news sources or one of the video game sources which have been identified as being reliable. If it is to be included here, however, I do think that some care needs to be given to how it is stated and also as to including any comments which may be coming forth from Peasgood to explain her position; while it may, indeed, be hypocrisy or pandering to a position just to get on TV, it's also possible that she changed her mind, or regretted her participation, in the game. Hypocrisy is doing one thing and saying another; regretting what you've done and/or changing your mind about what you've done and saying another is not hypocrisy. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC) (Typo corrections. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC))Reply

Thanks for responding. If her comments have generated a lot of coverage and we can find some reliable sources then I agree we should add it. I was mostly concerned about the nature of the edits being made concerning this topic, which were negative overall. As regards a reference, generally programmes are viewable on itv.com for 30 days so perhaps that could be a temporary measure, but if we were going to quote her then something more permanent will be needed. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Someone's added her official webtsite as a ref for the video. Might be better to add a different source so I'll use the imdb for now. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good deal. Your concern for the initial edits was entirely proper. The first one was far better than the second one, but both violated WP:GRAPEVINE and were properly removed immediately, at least insofar as they reported her comments on Titchmarsh. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• This has been removed again, and I've reverted because no explanation was given. It seems there is consensus to include it, and if necessary, I'll protect this page. Rodhullandemu 18:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've deleted the word violent from "to Creative Reality's violent survival horror videogame" as original research (and now I think about it, "survival" should probably go, too, but since it's not potentially negative, I'm not going to bother right now. "Violent" can probably go back in once a reliable source has been found for the flap. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have picked these up from a Google News search I did about ten minutes ago. Not sure, however, to what extent we can use them -if at all. Comments welcome. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Alan Titchmarsh: not a fan of video games from The Guardian (includes a recording of the debate)
• Julie Peasgood acted in horror video game from Computerandvidegames.com

The guardian entry is a blog, and thus unreliable, and the computerandvideogames.com entry is, I believe, listed as non-reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources, so we're not quite there, yet. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

CVG is not listed as unreliable at WP:VG/RS. It is a reliable source. - X201 (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you post the question on wp:RSN, you'll get good feedback there. --Work permit (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

ok, discussion now open. Cheers. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

ok, after much thought on this and about how to make it npov I've added a sentence on this subject with the above refs. I'm not happy with my use of the word "violent" though and think a more neutral word is probably appropriate. Perhaps I'll have a look for an alternative. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

This article would be much better if some of the sections were merged together. As some contain only one or two lines, I think a better idea might be to have sections along the lines of "Acting career", "Presenting career" and "Other work", then to have a "Filmography" section listing all her TV and film credits. Also this seems to rely too heavily on her CV, which it shouldn't really do. We need some independent references. Any thoughts on this are welcome and I'll leave it for a while to get some feedbackbefore perhaps working on it in a few days. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just spent the last couple of hours rewriting this. Have tried to do it along the lines o this article which I also rewrote some time back. Needs more refs and the CV refs need combining into one, and preferably replacing with a third party source. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Any idea why Kate McEnery page redirects here? Tanis8472 (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looks like Kate McEnery is her daughter. Keith D (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know that, why does clicking the link take me to Kate page and redirect me back here automatically? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanis8472 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Kate's page is just a redirect so going to that page will take you automatically to the target of that redirect which is Julie Peasgood page. You can get to the Kates page by modifying the URL by adding &redirect=no to force it to stop on the redirect page or you can click on the link (Redirected from Kate McEnery) at the top of Julie Peasgood when you have returned here. The link should really be removed from this page unless an article is created for Kate. Keith D (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply