Talk:Peg Entwistle/Archive 1

If the official Death Certificate reads February 6, 1908, that's the date that should be listed in an encyclopedia. Right?

Michael David 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is she in any way related to John Entwhistle of The Who? 75pickup (talk · contribs) note: this comment was made on 16 August 2006

A cursory review of Brian Keith's bios on Wiki, IMDB reveals that Meg Entwhistle was not his mother. Thus I have removed the section claiming that she was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.70.92 (talk) 19 September 2006

The fact that their names are spelled differently is a bit of a clue! Deb 11:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is *way* overstuffed with unnecessary detail. It should be edited down mercilessly to fit encyclopedic standards. Who cares about the incidents surrounding her father's death? Her major point of celebrity is her own death and her brief flirtation with stardom, not her father's life. Someone needs to get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.47.208 (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2008

links

I find the linking to the "Hollywood Sign Girl" fan page, unprofessional and not in keeping with proper WP referencing. The links are indirect leading to the flashpage on the front of the website, and the material is merely reprinted from elsewhere. Citing a New York Times or other newspaper item, if linked which it need not be, should be linked directly to the original item of the source site, such as the New York times archives. Material found at this fan site that is NOT reprinted, should be considered original research and not included as citable references. I propose cleaning up the citations to wiki standard and removing this link farm, and leaving the fan page as merely an external link. EraserGirl (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I know the page could use a clean up, but it isn't so much that the other page is a fansite as it is a page being authored in anticipation of a biography in cooperation with Enwistle's family, and is based fairly strongly in actual research. The site has photoscans of each article or document that was referenced. Actually, if the page contains a scan of an actual source, then it's acceptable to use that as a source, along with the original citation such as using the New York Times article as the actual source, with the link to a photoscan of the actual article. That's done quite often in articles, especially when the original would be difficult to find, such as an article from the 1920s. I didn't realize that all the hollywoodsigngirl links were to the agreement page. However, I don't consider the material that isn't preprinted to be invalid and don't support striking everything related to the work of the editor who contributed it in good faith. His efforts to assemble material related to the subject are little different than any one of us assembling material from many sources in order to add to an article. The only difference is that he first put it on a website. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision

I feel with this present revision and some minor editing and smoothing of transitions, this article can be considered for reassessment to B-Status. I have removed all embedded mentions of the Hollywood Girl fansite, and replaced the citations with actual ones. Included in my revision was a removal of trivial data unrelated to the subject of the article, as well as all the direct references to how the data was collected and the decision making process regarding its inclusion. These PRE-Arguments regarding disputed facts should be placed on the discussion page to preclude future arguments regarding their validity. For example, the entire passage regarding the nude photograph as urban rumor was struck, as any argument for its exclusion would only come up IF someone tried to include it. Also, comments reinforce the accuracy of her birth date and reasons why it can be found incorrectly elsewhere, should be made here on the discussion page.

I have also flagged the Wild Duck mention as it cannot be verified. The Internet Broadway database lists two runs for that production, a 1925 and a 1928 revivial, neither star Entwhistle. Therefore the 1926 date was wrong and was removed. However she may have played in either production, if only as an understudy or for part of the run. I would doubt that Bette Davis misremembered who she saw perform in the production, but but it can easily be understood if she misremembered the production dates. Further research should be done on that item. EraserGirl (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't count too heavily on the absence of appearances on the IBDB to mean it didn't exist. As example, the database doesn't show the appearance of Raquel Welch in an early 1983 production of Woman of the Year. It shows her appearance in the show in December 1981 and no other time, but it was in the spring of 1983 when I saw this and it wasn't the case that Welch was a one time stand-in. They don't even list Jerry Orbach as having been in the production. However, I was there, I saw it, I have the ticket stub, photographs of them all and Playbill to prove it. A few years later, we went to see 42nd Street, which at the time was also starring Jerry Orbach and Peggy Cass, and a fairly unknown, except to fans of The Guiding Light, Lisa Brown (who played Nola Reardon). I have all their signatures on my Playbill, talked to them for a long time outside the stage door, but the IBDB doesn't list Lisa Brown as having been in 42nd Street at any time. I saw her, have all the documents to support it. I think the IBDB can be used to support what it has listed, but in no way can it be used to confirm something wasn't staged, or someone wasn't in it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I never meant it wasn't staged at all, I meant the dates were inaccurate. As I am now informed the play was in Boston not NYC as the article lead one to believe then that section can of course be rewritten to reflect both the date and the CITY. I wouldn't actually think the IBDB was an official source, but i checked it and could not immediately validate the reference with it, so I merely thought another reference should be found. Thanks for the correction.EraserGirl (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Brodway Data Base

The Broadway data base is just what the term refers to...it is A DATA BASE ABOUT BROADWAY, and only Broadway. It does not even include "Off Broadway" productions. Peg Entwistle starred in over 30 plays away from Broadway. Thus, these plays, including the mentioned Ibsen play (which was performed at The Henry Jewett Repertory in Boston in 1925) are NOT INCLUDED IN THE IBDB.

And here is another fact that should have been taken into consideration of me and my research and contributions before the massive attack on my character, writing and research began by Erasergirl, The IBDB also does not include shows by the Theatre Guild's Repertory groups which, though might have had an opening on Broadway, or a preview performance for Guild subscribers, went on the road. There are many other details which I can prove through the hard work and research I have undertaken, yet Eraser refuses to accept valid research or even discussions regarding it. Erasergirl knows nothing of the history of Broadway, the Theatre Guild, or the reason why some of Peg Entwistle's plays are not included in the IBDB.

By the way, there is no "h" in Peg Entwistle's name and there never was.

Again...this is all insulting to my research and a personal attack aimed to publically humiliate me because I am the leading expert on Peg Entwistle's life, death, and career.

If I was first consulted about my research before it was wiped out, Eraser (and her friend) would have been given an indepth history lesson of the IBDB and it's intentions. This would have included important details about Peg Entwistle's career apart from Broadway and with tours representing the Guild across the United States during 1929, which are trivial to Erasergirl but are of great importance to millions who wish to learn more about Entwistle's career.

Contempt prior to investigation is sore human trait, indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameszerukjr (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to start signing your posts. Your research is certainly not WIPED out. it exists and you are to be commended for it. However it is not the subject of the article. Entwistle (sorry about the typo, my copy of Word recognizes the H version, so I never noticed the auto-correction) is the subject of the article. So HOW you obtained your information shouldn't be included IN the article, just the information, and the footnotes show WHERE you found it. Linking to actual documents on the web where applicable is appropriate, linking your YOUR agreement page is not. That agreement is also not enforceable as most of those documents are in PD and the newspaper articles are copyrighted - only your original material is protected by your copyright. You should publish your research is very in depth and detailed, if you don't have enough for a book, then as a monograph. HOWEVER, not every tidbit of information should be in the WP article. It is completely irrelevant that her father was hit by a limo driver who got out of the car, and what the tipster told the police or whether a naked picture is NOT the subject in question. You are such an expert on your work you just need helping SEEING which parts are important and which parts are inconsequential. You want everyone to know how much work you have done but it just shouldn't BE in there article - the research isn't part of her life. I have the same problem you have with MY favorite research subject, when I wrote the article I put in the kitchen sink, but that DOESN'T make it better. Sometimes less IS more.

As for your ranting and raving, I am gonna let it slide. No one impugned your anything, not your character not your research, so calm down. Only your application of your vast knowledge was questioned. A WP biography should be a distillation of what you have learned about the subject, NOT a dumping ground for everything you picked up along the way. I am not saying my work was in anyway final, but it DID removed the most of the chaff from the wheat. EraserGirl (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment

Unless someone plans additional major revisions, I think the article could be submitted for reassessment. Any objections? EraserGirl (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean?

Do you mean completely redo it? Also, I added the citation for the Hamlet walk-on but I've forgotten how to add it into the "References" section...don't have time to reply to all, will later! Jameszerukjr (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a revision, just WP rating method. I fixed the Citation, no big.EraserGirl (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Internet Movie Data Base

The External Link directing to the TCM website navigates to a "Jayne Entwistle" page of the site--it is also an empty bio page. Some time ago I submitted a short bio to TCM regarding Peg Entwistle. It has been approved but not yet posted. Can we change the link to Peg's TCM, or should we wait until the bio is actually up? Jameszerukjr (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

TCM does have a listing for Peg Entwistle, though it is empty. I just corrected the link, so its fine as it is. EraserGirl (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No it'snot, b 1 --tch!