Jump to content

Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Mental Illness of Marilyn Monroe

Why is there no section about Marilyn Monroe's mental illness. The woman was wacko, and locked up many times. Her mother was also crazy, and was there rest of her family. Can you write about this?--Jil492868 (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Marilyn's mother, Gladys, suffered from mental illness most of her life and was institutionalized several times during Marilyn's childhood. She stayed in an institution throughout Marilyn's life and died there in the 1980s. Her grandmother, Della Monroe, also suffered from mental illness, and a grandfather had committed suicide. All this served to haunt Marilyn throughout her life as she thought she too might succumb to the ravages of mental illness in later life. This thought would have certainly made her depression worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jil492868 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe was a genius in modeling, acting, singing and dancing. She was NOT a "wacko" and was NOT "locked up many times". Only the ignorant and oblivious would ever describe her so disrespectfully. MM was and still is considered brillant and a goddess. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Gene Kelly and Monroe

Marilyn's relationship with Kelly was fascinating and needs an expansion. All we have now is: "A film version of the Broadway musical, A Tree Grows In Brooklyn, and an unnamed World War I–themed musical co-starring Gene Kelly were also discussed, but the projects did not eventuate.[118]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneKellyusa483 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Goddards

This section is all wrong. Who wrote this? Goddards were a very important part of her life for along time. Also she was very much in love with Dougherty when they married. Can we take this whole section out?

"Her time with the Goddards would once again prove to be short. At the end of 1942, Grace and Doc decided to relocate to Virginia, where Doc had received a lucrative job offer. It is unclear whether the Goddards did not or could not take Norma Jeane with them; nevertheless, Grace needed to find a home for her before they moved. An offer from a neighborhood family to adopt Norma Jeane was proposed but Gladys still would not allow it. With few options left, Grace approached Dougherty's mother and suggested that Jim marry her, so that she would not have to return to an orphanage or foster care. Dougherty was initially reluctant because Norma Jeane was only sixteen-years old, but he finally relented and married her in a ceremony arranged by Ana Lower, after graduating high school in June 1942. Monroe would state in her autobiography that she did not feel like a wife; she enjoyed playing with the neighborhood children until her husband would call her home. In 1943, with World War II raging, Dougherty enlisted in the Merchant Marine and was shipped out to the Pacific. Frightened that he might not come back alive, Norma Jeane begged him to give her a child before he left. Dougherty disagreed, feeling that she was too young to have a baby, but he promised that they would revisit the subject when he returned home. After he shipped out, Norma Jeane moved in with Dougherty's mother." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfdheu7362 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that they were for "a long time"? After Grace moved, she and Marilyn wrote each other only once in awhile, and she ended up committing suicide by swallowing pills right before she turned 60; Marilyn herself was found in a similar situation nine years later, but still in LA.
In most sources I've found online, she explains that she only got married because she didn't want to have to go back to the orphanage. Unfortunately, he took it the wrong way and even though he realized she was so much younger than him and that it was a "convenience marriage", he was heartbroken when she divorced him. In response, she would say that she felt depressed and bored in the marriage and I don't think that meant she was really romantically interested in him. Xmorningglory (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
But I agree, there are no sources. I'm removing what seems to be a lot of OR. Xmorningglory (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I just thought I should point out that the post you're responding to is over 1 1/2 years old. Shearonink (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It is indeed almost two years old, but at least on my computer, it still shows this information, with a few lines modified. So what's the true story? It says only established users can edit. 75.4.236.46 (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes people don't see the date of a Talkpage post, that is all. Regarding the Goddards and assertions about their relationship with Miss Monroe? I have no idea. Register an account, find information in reliable sources and add those cited facts to the article. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Mother

Can we have a new section about her mother?--Stuprus (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? What would that contribute to this article. If her mother is notable then she should have her own page. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 14:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion that "Doc" Goddard tried to sexually assault Norma Jeane is slanderous, wrong, and should be removed. Indeed, why would Marilyn contact "Doc" Goddard shortly before her death (asking for clues about her father) if he had ever done such a thing? Marilyn never forgave or forgot any offence against her, especially where men were concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reb1973 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A whore?

The first line says:

Marilyn Monroe (June 1, 1926 - August 5, 1962) was an American actress, singer, model, and a whore.

Since when is being a whore (or a chaste woman) a relevant character trait? Căluşaru' (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalism, and it's already been remedied. - Gyrofrog (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, sorry and thanks. I'm not in love with Marilyn Monroe, but I don't like people insulting other people. Căluşaru' (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I hyper-linked some important words in the article introduction. These include typecasting (acting), suicide, Model (person), Singing, actress, critic, overdose. XXVII (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of them perhaps needed to be linked, but common words, no. We have to be able to assume anyone reading has a basic understanding of common words and professions, such as "American", "singing", "actress" etc, and across the whole project there is a move to remove existing links for such words. It's explained at WP:OVERLINK and particularly at WP:LINK/OBVIOUSMEANING. I will partially revert your edit on that basis. Rossrs (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Pornographic Movies?

Hearsay, I know, but I heard there were old 8mm reels of Marylin engaging in sexual acts - is this true? If so, should it be mentioned here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.16.10 (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The previous consensus has been to leave it out. Please read the previous (archived) discussions at Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 1#Sex tape section, Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 1#Porn film tittle-tattle, Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 2#Sex Tape, and Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 2#Sex film redux. This does not preclude the information from being included in the article, but given the previous sentiments, you would probably have to make a very good case for inclusion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Was Marilyn Mealy another alias of Monroe?

Luke: The way it was explained in the Google Talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY6Hk8_eiKs#t=2365 led me to believe it was another of Monroe's aliases. If so there may be an interesting story

Kurt Beyer, MIT Press as source:

Page 312, Grace Hopper and the Invention of the Information Age - Kurt Beyer, Published by MIT Press in 2009

Google Talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY6Hk8_eiKs#t=2365

--62.24.235.251 (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Page 311 indicates Mealey was "a 19-year-old high school graduate from the Mayfair section of Philadelphia...." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Something's Got To Give

It says in the paragraph as it stands now, that Dean Martin was faced with a lawsuit. It's the first time I read this, as until now I always heard in documentaries and bios that Martin had it in his contract he had a choice of co-star, and even director if I recall correctly, and he said it was either Monroe or no movie at all. Is it possible the quote is old and the Martin contract info surfaced later? I can't read the quote, but I remember Summer wrote a bio on Monroe and it's from like, late 80s? Dollvalley (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Summers book does not give much comment. In fact, "When Dean Martin refused to work with any other actress, they sued him too." is all it says. Summers's sourcing notes attributes various newspapers and publications such as Variety, Los Angeles Times etc to the material relating to Monroe's involvement with Something's Got to Give, but does not specify the exact source for the comment about Martin. All of the works cited are from July and August 1962; some dated after Monroe's death. It's not vital to the article and I don't see a problem with removing it. Probably not a bad idea to just get rid of it. I think it was added by me, quite some time ago, but I'm not sure. The copyright for Summers's book is 1985 BTW, you're quite right. Rossrs (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've researched Marilyn quite a bit and I believe the reference that "they sued him too" is inaccurate. It should either be removed or at least changed to "they may have threatened to sue him too". - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yank magazine image

If this was discussed in the past, please bear with me. I looked through the archives but found nothing. Why does the article use the black and white version of Image:MarilynMonroe-YANK1945.jpg instead of the color version? As far as I can tell, there is no legal restriction on either image. If the reason is that the latter version is digitally colorized and photography purists don't consider that artistically acceptable, I happen to disagree. I'd like to hear other opinions. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Main image

For months this image from 'The Prince and the Showgirl' was the main image on the page, that is until it was replaced without any explanations with this one from 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes'. I have no idea why this image was replaced, it is a clearer shot of her face and there was really no reason to replace, especially with thate one. I reverted back to the original, and I hope it stays that way, that is unless a better image is found. Andrew0921 (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Marilyn Monroe in The Prince and the Showgirl trailer cropped.jpg
Original
Replacement

And I say "distort" because the way somebody looks with their mouth open and their eyebrows raised in surprised expression which was captured in movement does not represent the way a person looks like when they are standing still and look directly at the camera. Andrew0921 (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a nice image, but it is a side view. I like all these images, but I think the main image should be head on so that people viewing the article for the first time know what the person looks like. The side view is okay, but the other two are head on, which is more representative. Andrew0921 (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Image in infobox

A minor edit war has erupted about which image to place in the infobox:
Image 1 (top one on right). File:Marilyn Monroe in The Prince and the Showgirl trailer cropped.jpg
Image 2 (bottom one on right). File:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes Movie Trailer Screenshot (16).jpg


Wikipedia does not decide things by majority rule, but it might help in this case to get some opinions about which one editors prefer. Any and all opinions are welcome, even if you don't state a preference. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Image 2 - I think both are decent images, but this one is the one that strikes me as a typical Marilyn shot. I don't agree with opinons that her mouth makes it look odd, or that it is distorted, or that it was in the article a long time (things can changes sometimes), but I respect editors' opinions who feel that way. Cresix (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Image 1 Well I reverted back because it was the image which best shows her, without her face being caught in a strange expression from a screen shot. I like that image from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, but I think it should be used somewhere else in the article and not as the main image. The main image should be a clear shot of the face, like a head shot. Also the other image which somebody used from 'Some Like it Hot' had very high contrast which washed out her features like her nose. As I said, the main image should be clear.
I propose keeping the original image because: #1 It is in color #2 It is head on and without a distorting expression #3 It was used for months without any issues #4 It is a simple and relatively high quality image that clearly represents her #5 It was removed without being discussed. Andrew0921 (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Image 2 - most definitely, much more clearer, lighter, and shows all of her features (although some say it doesn't). And I agree that her mouth doesn't make the image "distorted" or "odd." Dorothy Shaw98 (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Image 1 - I think it's important to consider where particular images are placed, and their purpose. In the infobox, the image should be mainly to show what the person looked like, so that if someone doesn't know what they looked like, they can get a basic identification. Obviously Monroe is well known but if it was a lesser known performer, an "in character" image may not perform the simple task of showing their appearance. For this reason, I think that a "neutral" or even "static" image serves the purpose well and a plain "head shot" such as the Showgirl image works better in the infobox than it probably would in the article body. In the article body, the image is used to illustrate text, so for example if the text is talking about Monroe as a comedic performer or even as a "dumb blonde" the Gentlemen image is a perfect choice. The wide eyes and open mouth perfectly fit that persona and in that context, it's a great image. The Some Like it Hot image is important for the article, simply because the film and the performance are often hailed as Monroe's greatest, but the image has it's flaws. We're lucky that there are enough free images of her that we can place them throughout the article to illustrate key points and create an overall impression of her. Rossrs (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I really think we need to put it as the Gentlmen Prefer Blondes picture for two reasons, she looks a lot happier and is because shes beginning her career and has a great leading role and is getting successful where she was already a star and had changed a lot by the time she did The Princess and the Showgirl which wasn't as good as Gentlemen Prefer Blondes or as much of a symbol of Marilyn Monroe as Gentlemen Prefer Blondes was. It was much more important in her career and I like to see her making great movies and not mediocre ones. Also The Prince and the Showgirl one has been up FOREVER and why not have some change. I changed it in like June and now all of the sudden people decide they care 4 months later. It's odd to me why, if its so important to other people, why it took so long to react. Because it is important to me and we should put up the Gentlemen Prefer Blondes picture. And i do not get how this work. What constitutes a "consensus"? Does everybody have to agree? Because everyone doesnt agree right now and for some reason people think it's alright to put The Prince and the Showgirl picture up when we haven't agreed really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilynmonroepictures (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I changed it a long time ago, nobody said anything, somebody changed it again, and i tried to change it back to what I had had the picture as for a LONG time and now everyone acts like I'm the one who changed the picture. I just put it back to what it was.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilynmonroepictures (talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 October 2010
The problem with your changing the image has nothing to do with how it was a long time ago; it's that there is an ongoing discussion here. Your change was reverted for that reason, and you were invited to participate here. That's standard operating procedure on Wikipedia. If you are 98.110.148.254 (talk · contribs), you also need to be aware that it is strictly forbidden to repeatedly revert an article with different usernames. Thanks for addressing the issue here. Cresix (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I wasn't repeatedly reverting an article with different usernames. I just made one. I fixed the picture when I didnt have a username and then, since you were dragging me into this whole ordeal, I thought it would be best that I make one. So I'm not trying to cheat the system or whatever you feel it is that I'm doing. And my point is not just that it was a long time ago. It's that nobody cared for such a long time. And now for no better reason than someone trying to start a fight so that they can win something everybody cares. I bet I could ask anybody I know what the standard operating procedure is for editing a photo on Wikipedia and over 99% of them would tell me that they had no idea. I'm sorry i thought a different picture was better than the one that was on there but i didn't know about that rule back then and obviously it didnt matter for about five months. So I dont know why you can't just let it go and next time I want to change the picture (I'd like to change Cary Grant's picture to a more youthful one) I will follow the correct procedure. And I'll spread the word to all my friends about the correct way to edit a wikipedia page so that nobody ever makes this mistake again. I don't know how i was supposed to know the correct procedure. And i dont know why it is right to keep it as The Prince and the Showgirl while we're discussing this since that's the one it was most recently changed to. The Gentlemen Prefer Blondes picture should stay up until this issue is resolved since that's the way it was and nobody had any right to change it just because somebody wasn't told the rules of Wikipedia 5 months ago. I care an awful, awful lot about Marilyn Monroe and I really would like her picture to be from that movie. I'm sorry i wasnt aware of the rules but please just let this one slide and I'll always follow procedure from now on since I'm aware of it. And if this whole thing is about you trying to catch somebody breaking the ill publicized rules of wikipedia(as you just said it was) then I honestly feel that you should rework your priorities. I have no idea about any of the rules of Wikipedia but I'm learning. I didnt even know how I was supposed to use this talk page for a long time which is why i wasn't communicating and i was just changing the picture back again and again. And I just figured out how to sign these messages. I'm honestly sorry that i broke the rules, it'll never happen again. But please, just let this go. Marilynmonroepictures (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That is all very nice Marilynmonroepictures, but there are certain rules and conventions that one must follow when editing wikipedia. One of these rules is that when there is a dispute there should be a consensus in order to find a resolution which helps enhance the article and it make it acceptable for everybody, not just the personal tastes of one particular individual. I am sorry, but things such as this simply cannot "slide", and just because you personally feel that the current image must be changed does not mean that other people want it changed for the simple fact that it has been up for a while. The info box image should be chosen to enhance the article and to give a proper representation of it's subject, not because it is time for change. At the present time the current image is one of the best available on the commons, that is why it is there, not because it represents the subject at a particular time in their career as that is a personal point of view which violates wikipedia's neutral point of view [1]. I would also like to mention that wikipedia is not memorial site [2] and that this is an encyclopedic article, not a fan page. Andrew0921 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
No it does not violate rules about "sock puppetry". The "nutshell" of that page is: The general rule is one editor, one account. An IP number is not an account. Nobody (not even somebody who has an account) is obliged to log in in order to edit. (No, this does not mean that it is always OK to edit without logging in when you have an account. But that's a separate matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Right. It's only sockpuppetry if an alternate account (or IP) is being used to evade the rules in some way. That doesn't appear to be the case here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree it's not sockpuppetry if there is no evasion of rules. Using a username and an anon IP to avoid 3RR is sockpuppetry, however. Marilynmonroepictures (talk · contribs) has admitted using the IP, and was approaching (if not surpassing) three reverts. My only concern was to inform Marilynmonroepictures about both 3RR and SP policies so that there would not be a policy violation or, if the reverts continued, it would be blockable. Perhaps my wording about sockpuppetry should have been more precise. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
For sure, 3RR would be one of those rules I alluded to. It's not like there's a "quota" of 3 reverts per user ID per day, it's the total by one person per day. In fact, a user can be blocked for edit-warring even at less than 3 reverts, if it's been persistent and disruptive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read my message carefully. I KNOW that I am the same person as those numbers ok. I am NOT trying to cheat the system or whatever you think I'm doing. I just made this account, and before just recently i had no account. I'm sorry i didnt make an account the first second i went on Wikipedia. That was very clever detective work you did but i didnt make multiple usernames. I had no usernames and then I made ONE username. I am not trying to disguise myself or anything like that. All that happened was I edited without a username and then I felt that if you guys were gonna start this whole big deal with me, then it would be better if I made an account. So don't try to catch me in the act or whatever because I didn't do anything wrong. And the whole point of that rule is so that people don't make a bunch of usernames and try to trick people and use multiple identities and do bad things all over wikipedia. Which is clearly not my intention at all. You should take yourself outside of being a rule enforcing machine and actually think logically and rationally about what is going on. And you've just made it extremely clear that the only reason for this is to make sure that everybody's following the rules. I'm sorry i broke them but you really should care less about enforcing Wikipedia rules and more about...almost anything else. And whatever people think "enhances" the article will obviously always be personal preference so that whole bit you said about "this is not a fan page" makes absolutely no sense. Obviously it is my personal preference that the other picture be up. And obviously it isn't important to you for any reason besides enforcing obscure rules because nobody cared that there was a different picture for 5 months. Obviously it actually matters to me for more than winning a fight since I noticed you guys had changed it RIGHT AFTER you did it. It didn't take me five months because i actually care for better reasons than enforcing rules. And as far as "representing" Marilyn correctly. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes reflects her SO much better than the Prince and the Showgirl. It was the movie that made her a star and she gave an iconic performance that people always think of the second they hear the name Marilyn Monroe. Most people have never even HEARD of The Prince and the Showgirl. So besides you being extremely unfair and not making any sense and claiming that I am trying to cheat the system of Wikipedia, I have a very good objective argument and a good reason for changing her picture. It has to do with much more to do with what is the best picture for the info box than it does personal preference. I'm doing the best thing for Marilyn Monroe and representing her as accurately as she can be for people that visit her page. I am not "treating it like a fan page" or "a memorial". Her performance and her image that she had in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes represents her so much better and made her what she was. That performance made her a star and defined what she was to the public. The Prince and the Showgirl was a failure of a movie and was at one of the lowest points of her career. It does NOT represent her nearly as well as Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. And you might say that "it doesn't matter what the movie is it's all about the picture" but thats not true because shes not being herself in either picture. She's acting. So you have to choose a picture that people will associate with Marilyn Monroe because Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is what made her an icon so to represent her and all that she became you should have her playing Lorelei Lee which is a role that represents her and defines her SO much more than Elsie Marina. So stop telling me I'm breaking the rules since I obviously understand that you dont care about this issue for any other reason than that. And start having a legitimate discussion. Marilynmonroepictures (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, you didn't intend to deceive. (See my comment immediately above your latest, long message.) ¶ And a quick look in film encyclopedias confirms that The Prince and the Showgirl is a turkey, so you may have a point about that too. ¶ But please don't fling around accusations such as that others don't care about anything other than such-and-such. (Editing this encyclopedia, I often sense that I'm surrounded by idiots, but I find that saying this gets me nowhere, and that rather often some patience eventually reveals that at least some of these "idiots" aren't idiots at all but are simply people who are as impatient as I am but are approaching an issue from a different direction. Eventually I get on well with them.) ¶ Conciseness is a virtue, too. ¶ Now let's move on, OK? -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Marilynmonroepictures,if you were to read the comments by other users you will see that other people and myself are saying that the image from The Prince and the Showgirl better represents her physical appearance than many of the other images in the commons. You said that "I really think we need to put it as the Gentlmen Prefer Blondes picture for two reasons, she looks a lot happier and is because shes beginning her career and has a great leading role and is getting successful where she was already a star and had changed a lot by the time she did The Princess and the Showgirl which wasn't as good as Gentlemen Prefer Blondes or as much of a symbol of Marilyn Monroe as Gentlemen Prefer Blondes was.", nobody here is talking about her movies, her looking happy, starting her career, having a leading role, this movie being more successful than that one, or the fact that you think Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is better than The Prince and the Showgirl, all of that has nothing to do with the clear representation of physical appearance. The infobox image should be mainly to show what the person looked like, so that if someone doesn't know what they looked like, they can get a basic identification, not because it shows them being happy at a particular stage in their career. Andrew0921 (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, since you brought up film success, one could argue that an image from Some Like it Hot would be more appropriate than an image from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes as it was arguably her most successful film and the one for which she won a Golden Globe. But again, all that is irrelevant as the issue at hand is not which film better represents her career or which film was more successful, the issue is having an image which is a clear physical representation of the person in the infobox. Andrew0921 (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe "Most people have never even HEARD of The Prince and the Showgirl" but on the other hand, that may just be your opinion. Even so, if they haven't heard of this film, how wonderful that an encyclopedic entry such as this can educate readers about the existence of this film, which may not have stood the test of time, but which was a notable moment in her career. The Prince in the Showgirl is mentioned in the lead section as the only film made by Monroe as a producer, and for which she was BAFTA nominated. Perhaps the BAFTA nomination is evidence that her performance was well regarded even if the film was not, and I agree that the film is a turkey. Who cares? The point of the image is to show what she looked like. We have a limited number of free images and we have to choose which one is most suitable based on individual merit. In addition to your push for the Gentlemen Prefer Blondes image, I notice you also added the Asphalt Jungle image with a similar edit summary. That image is one of the least suitable of the few suitable options - it's a poor, black and white image, with Monroe's face comprising about 10% of the image, and her facial expression is close to a grimace - and yet you chose it ahead of a well balanced, clear, colour face shot - because you don't like the film? I don't like the film either. I like the other film much better. It doesn't matter. The main thing I'm getting from your comments is a failure to distinguish between the quality of the image and the quality of the film from which it was taken. As for your caring very much about Marilyn Monroe etc, what makes you think that your caring has more value than other editors caring about Marilyn Monroe, or her Wikipedia article, or Wikipedia in general or anything else you care to mention? Have enough good faith to assume that everyone who is here, is here because they care about something enough to comment, whether you agree or not. Rossrs (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Precisely. Marilyn's complaint would only hold water if this article were about Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and it included a frame from The Prince and the Showgirl. But it's not, it's about the actress. So the point is to produce a usable and fairly normal likeness. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Im not trying to represent her career at all I'm trying to represent her and the general public perception of her. It's about more than physical appearance it's about the representing the person as a whole. Like if its all about physical appearance would a mugshot be best? Because that is all about identification which is what you say this is about. Marilyn Monroe's blank stares (such as the one in The Prince and the Showgirl picture) are just like anybody elses blank stares. They don't define her as a whole. And how can you say the Gentlemen Prefer Blondes doesn't represent her physically. It represents her so much better physically than "The Prince and the Showgirl". Anybody who thinks about "the Marilyn Monroe look" will almost always be thinking of the way she looked in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. That was her look. That was her persona. It has nothing to do with how good the movie is. It's based on the fact that, physically and charismatically, the Gentlemen Prefer Blones picture represents her image and her "physical appearance" that she was best known for (medium length blonde curly hair, bright red lipstick, etc.) and it has nothing to do with how good the movie is. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes defines her and her image no matter how good or bad the movie was. And it represents her "physically" a lot better than the Prince and the Showgirl. And nobody tell me that "thats just your opinion" because it really is a fact that she is much better physically and charismatically represented in the Gentlemen Prefer Blondes picture. That wide eyed exaggerated expression of her represents her "physically" extremely well. A blank stare could be anybody's blank stare. Marilynmonroepictures (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Marilynmonroepictures, let us put aside for a moment the question of what is and isn't a mere opinion. Now, what is it that you want shown? You've said medium length blonde curly hair, bright red lipstick, etc., but what's the "etc." within that? (Please respond concisely.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Anything that defines her main image as those things do. It could be her tight dresses or her seven year itch dress or her diamonds are a girls best friend dress or it could be an expression on her face. Just anything that describes the public's image of her. I wish there were better pictures to choose from and then we could resolve this a lot easier.Marilynmonroepictures (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Her makeup is heavier in the Gentlemen Prefer Blondes picture and her features are more prominent which was definitely part of her look. Marilynmonroepictures (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is getting way out of hand, the majority consensus here thus far is that The Prince and the Showgirl is the best choice available from the commons. Marilynmonroepictures is just rambling about their personal preference at this point, and it is going too far. Please end or settle this already, this "no way/yes way" thing is beginning to look childish. Andrew0921 (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is image 1, and that's that. I was trying to figure out where redlink Marilyn was coming from on this, and that's done. We're good. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, consensus has been determined to be Image 1. Any additional discussion about this matter needs to go in a new section. Cresix (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
In fact, I recommend it go into a new subpage by itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm very glad the Prince and the Showgirl photo was used. The makeup is relatively natural and the lighting reveals a lot of detail...both of which give the visitor a good look at her actual bone structure. Codenamemary (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Boxing Day secret marriage "rumours" - the real truth

Many edits about Marilyn marrying a man in a bow tie over the past 24 hours.

For those (correctly) doing the reverting and who may be unaware, it's not a "rumour". It's part of the storyline of this year's Doctor Who Christmas special "A Christmas Carol".

So, keep reverting. The fans will quieten down soon. But be aware that it's not exactly a rumour. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked two named accounts and the latest IP. Acroterion (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I've just requested some form of temporary protection until the Whovian hubbub hopefully dies down. Shearonink (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the "Ryaboy W. Ryaboy" reference a reliable source?

The reference of "Ryaboy W. Ryaboy I." (http://www.wid-m-2002.ru/Celebs/Marilyn-Monroe-and-Russian-in-Hollywood.html RUSSIAN LOVER Marilyn Monroe Or as the Volga Burlaks Hollywood is built) has been added to this article as a reference and has then been reverted a couple of times at this point (see one edit diff: here). Since the website is in Russian it is unclear to me if this website can be considered as a reliable source. I have also posted a query about this reference/website at Reliable Sources Noticeboard{Joseph Schenck Birthplace question) and at WikiProject Russa (Source used at Joseph Schenck article). This website's possible issues need to be discussed here before the information is added back into the article again. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was added to the External links section. It would be one thing if it had been cited (inline) as a source, but it wasn't. This being the English Wikipedia, I don't see how such an external link serves any purpose in this article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
At one point in the edit history the book/website was also listed within the References. Shearonink (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Besides the problems I cited in the revert, for verifiability reasons, English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources to non-English ones; except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. Kierzek (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Uncredited extra work - IMDb as a source?

The reason that IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source is that its content mostly consists of reader-submitted information (per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites), there are also known copyright and vandalism issues as stated here. The only exceptions I'm aware of is information that comes directly from the WGA/Writers Guild and the DGA/Directors' Guild. In the case of these various uncredited extra bits that Miss Monroe reportedly did I am not aware of corroboration of these assertions from an independent reliable source...if that information exists in some other source other than IMDb there would be much less of an issue. Also, if she's not listed as a member of the cast in the credits either then the film itself cannot be used as a source.
For instance, in the case of her appearance in The Shocking Miss Pilgrim, I found this mention online at [6]:

"MM in the role of an extra in her very first movie, she played telephone operator. She is like many extra's not uncredited in this movie. I've seen the movie, but I can't find MM in the 'Telephone Operator' scene. Nonetheless she is in it according to www.imdb.com."

So, IMDb is used as a source and yet this writer states they couldn't find her in that particular scene. The only possible proof I have found is a black & while still of Miss Monroe I found here: http://www.allstarpics.net/pictures/0657533/the-shocking-miss-pilgrim-pics.html, *but* using that picture from an unvetted website might constitute original research. Shearonink (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is not entirely "reader-submitted"; that's why I said it may "otherwise" be considered an unreliable source, but for cast lists it is acceptable, because cast lists on IMDb are not user-submitted (as is, for example, trivia; even trivia items submitted by readers are not posted until reviewed by IMDb staff); cast lists are confirmed from the film itself or from those with some authority related to the film before they are added. IMDb is not "forbidden" in it's entirety on Wikipedia. Most film articles on Wikipedia do not use any source for cast lists; many of them were taken directly from IMDb. In any event, Downtownstar (talk · contribs) removed the films with the edit summary "her contribution to these films is under dispute". Please provide some details about who, besides Downtownstar, disputes that she was in the films. Cresix (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I did not state IMDb was entirely reader submitted, but would like to know your source for stating that 'for cast lists it is acceptable'. I also have no dispute with anyone about her alleged appearance in various movies, I only care what reliable sources have to say about her film career. I know that mistakes are in the IMDb listings, in my experience, credits in movies can be and are reader-submitted. The only time that information on IMDb is beyond reproach is when the information comes directly from the WGA and the DGA. One instance I remember of an IMDb problem is when I was at a seminar where a film director said 'I have no idea who this person is' (when they were referring to an actor's claimed credit in a movie this man had directed).
As an aside, I did find a reference at History.Com (which I would consider a reliable source) in a Marilyn Monroe birthdate mention here that states "After a bit part in 1947’s The Shocking Miss Pilgrim..." The issue for me is not the mention of these extra or bit part (and uncredited) appearances it is *if* the information can be verified in a reliable source. Shearonink (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
To my knowledge, there is no policy stating that IMDb cast lists are not acceptable. Try to add an incorrect cast member to IMDb; it won't work. There is a link to "Edit", but that's simply to submit a suggested edit for review by IMDb staff. I even tried to correct a mistake in some biographical information at IMDb. When I simply submitted the suggested change, nothing happened -- for weeks. When I sumbitted the suggested change with reliable source to back up my claim, it was changed within days. There is some editorial control at IMDb, just not certain parts of it (notably trivia). And editorial control (barring any other reason that challenges reliability) is the basis for determining that a source is reliable. I'm fine with removing the films from MM's filmography if someone can provided substantive evidence that her appearance in those films is disputed. So far I haven't seen much, if anything. In fact, with your identication of a source that states she appeared in one of the films, the evidence seems to indicate that including at least that film in her filmography is not a problem. Cresix (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not disputing that Miss Monroe might have done uncredited work in various movies that can possible be reliably-sourced, but in my opinion and experience IMDb should not be regarded as the final word on credits. I think the information should not be included unless it can be also soured from another reference. (And I know this might seem like a small matter, but I would still like to know (since IMDb is generally regarded as a problematic source) if there is a guideline that states 'for cast lists it is acceptable'. Shearonink (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not a small matter; sourcing is important. But so is a complete article. Is there a statement on Wikipedia that IMDb should never be used ("avoid" is not the same as "never")? If so, I'll respect that. But it seems a shame to remove legitimate information in this legendary person's article without something more substantial to suggest that the information is incorrect. Is there another source for cast lists used more widely on Wikipedia? Apart from no source, IMDb certainly seems to be one of the most widely used here, if not the most widely used. And I personally don't know of any better source for cast information. If there is one, please let me know. Cresix (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
For Marilyn Monroe, the best source of casting information would be one of the many copiously researched books on her life, in which authors, including such esteemed film historians as Barbara Leaming and Donald Spoto, have had access to studio records, interviews with studio executives and film crews, etc. IMDb is a wikia and wikia are disallowed as reference sources. On a more pragmatic level, everything is IMDb is supposed to come from some outside source, so we should be citing that outside source.
And false cast and crew information has gotten into IMDb. To demonstrate this to his staff, an editor at TV Guide years ago added a made-up claim for "frog wrangler" for some movie. As far as I know, it's still there.
Given that we're an encyclopedia, which by definition is ostensibly the last, most concrete word on a subject, we probably shouldn't add information if there's any serious question about the source's reliability.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Has any one considered that she had Reactive Attachment Disorder?

my daughter has it because of her mother being mentally ill and no one wanted her. She showed most of the same symptoms my daughter has. any thoughts? Jessica Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.213.224.36 (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! While that's an interesting topic, article talk pages are not a forum and are meant for discussing improvements to the article. Reading WP:FORUM may give you some better ideas of where to ask this. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Borderline Personality Disorder

according to http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/27/the-science-of-empathy Kittybrewster ☎ 16:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"A well-known borderline was Marilyn Monroe": I prefer to see evidence from appropriately trained mental health practitioners and documented with scientifically-validated information. Interesting material for speculation, but a long way from diagnostic. Cresix (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Even though Baron-Cohen is a professional(Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at Cambridge, PhD in Psychology, etc.), blandly stating in a newspaper column such a serious statement (that someone had borderline personality disorder) without sources to back up that statement changes it into an armchair diagnosis for a dead celebrity's mental status and does not seem to be reliable and verifiable. It might be more appropriate to mention that 'the woman known as Marilyn Monroe was psychologically troubled. Some experts assert that she had borderline personality disorder (refs), some state that she (etc., with refs)". Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Dress Size

What dress size was Marilyn? Does anyone know? 23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.180.181 (talk)

Is this relevant to improving the article? And BTW, new sections go at the bottom of the talk page. Cresix (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to improving to the improving of this article and could be a simple Google search. However, I will answer. Marilyn Monroe was a UK size sixteen, and today would've fluctuated between US8 and US12, not to mention 117-135 lb throughout her career (she was found 117 at death). here were more ranges that she went between; Bust: 35-37 inches Waist: 22-23 inches Hips: 35-36 inches Bra size: 36C/D — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnitaNayaLove (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Some Like It Hot - Not listening is wrong

Its says that she refused to take direcion from Billy Wilder where actually, the cast states 'she always listened to Billy Wilder and everyone on how to act..' - Some Like It |Hot special features (2001)

Would this please be able to be corrected? - Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvluv224 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Middle name?

The article does not go into depth. Is her middle name supposed to be Jeane, or was the first name two names (Norma Jeane)? (I do know some girls that have two names and not just one, but when they write it, it looks like a middle name: ex. Mary Ann). 75.5.8.142 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, Jeane was her middle name, but it would appear that she used both her first and middle name (I have read both her and Dougherty's books, and most people call her Norma Jeane; only once or twice is she ever credited as just Norma). So the answer would have to be both: her middle name is Jeane, and she used both her first and middle name. ★Dasani★ 20:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

An image from her birth certificate is showing on the right. Jeane is her middle name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.128.131 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marilyn_Monroe/Archive_3&oldid=1246186568"