Jump to content

Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Mortenson

At the risk of being pedantic, in what meaningful sense was she born Norma Jeane Morteson? Can children be automatically born with a name, independent of what name their parents give them? I am aware that this was her mother's legal surname at the time. PatGallacher (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Children are named based on information provided by the mother (and father, if available). As the article explains, the mother initially gave the child's surname as Mortensen and then changed the child's surname to Baker. Keep in mind that record-keeping was not necessarily as rigid and meticulous as it might be now. And nobody knew she was going to become famous and be subject to this kind of scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Birthmark

I had thought the birthmark was covered over or exposed as she saw fit. Now I understand there was no birthmark. Was anyone before her famous for emphasizing a real or imagined birthmark? It seems worth a mention as it was something she played up in film and still pictures. (fotoguzzi)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.160.69 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the beauty mark was part of her image and it could be considered a point of interest... Elizabeth Taylor, Anne Francis, Joan Collins, Jane Russell in terms of movie-stars who are of Monroe's era or before all had moles or 'beauty marks', there also might be stage actresses but that is a harder term to do a search for. Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

marilynmonroefamily.com

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

marilynmonroefamily.com is NOT a fan site in the simple use of the word. It is hosted by the cousins of Marilyn. She is my 2nd cousin once removed. My grandmother is Gladys's cousin and Marilyn's 1st cousin once removed. Della Mae Hogan, Dora Hogan, and William Marion Hogan are siblings. William Marion Hogan is my great-grandfather. We are currently documenting Marilyn's (and our) family history for public viewing. All supporting documentation will posted at marilynmonroefamily.com as we continue updates. Please browse the site so you understand its context and importance concerning Marilyn's family history. Please do not remove www.marilynmonroefamily.com. Thanks, jasonekennedy@yahoo.com (www.facebook.com/jasonedwardkennedy) Jasonekennedy (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, if this site in the future does come up with documented information from reliable sources that sheds new light on Miss Monroe's life, then perhaps it could possibly be added in the External links section. Until then, I think it does not belong in the External links section since the site does not provide a unique contribution to the article. Also Wikipedia is not a collection of links, links are often pruned from articles when the External links section becomes too unwieldy (which has happened on some other high-profile articles like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. (FYI for anyone following this discussion, a second cousin once removed relationship indicates that the above poster's parent & Miss Monroe share a set of great-grandparents in common.) --Shearonink (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Links that are added to promote a site by the site operator or its affiliates should not be added. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. Before inserting the link ask yourself if this link provides a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article? If not, it shouldn't be linked. We should open this up for discussion however - I didn't remove the link originally, so I'm just weighing in based on this talk page request.--Yankees76 Talk 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, ALL of the EXTERNAL LINKS at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe are ADVERTISEMENT supported (see the list below). Therefore, you cannot reject www.marilynmonroefamily.com on those grounds. Please base your argument on content and context. It appears moderators are off-handedly rejecting www.marilynmonroefamily.com based on face value rather than doing any due diligence. Please take the time to do your due diligence. I'll be adding more documentation as we go along. I wish to gain the support of the Wikipedia team members and moderators in publically announcing Marilyn's family history to the world. For some reason, Marilyn's family lineage has been tucked away in a dark corner. But, there are many living cousins on William Marion Hogan's side who have kept silent for far too long. Everyone has something to say about Marilyn, except Marilyn relatives...why is that??!! I am here to change that. Please work with me and take the time to do your due diligence. Thanks, Jason Kennedy Jasonekennedy (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

EXTERNAL LINKS at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe): 

1)Internet Movie Database-   http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000054/    (ADVERTISEMENT SUPPORTED)
2)TCM Movie Database- http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/person/134087%7C106569/Marilyn-Monroe/   (ADVERTISEMENT SUPPORTED)
3)  Allrovi-   http://www.allrovi.com/name/p50065 (ADVERTISEMENT SUPPORTED)
4)WorldCat catalog- http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n79-55651 (ADVERTISEMENT SUPPORTED)
5) "LIFE"-  http://www.life.com/gallery/27452  (ADVERTISEMENT SUPPORTED)
6) http://books.google.com/books?id=eUkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA68&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=twopage&q&f=false (ADVERTISEMENT SUPPORTED)
7) http://altscreen.com/06/27/2011/marilyn-monroe-retrospective-at-bamcinematek/ (ADVERTISEMENT SUPPORTED)
I think you misunderstand - those websites didn't add themselves to the page to get more traffic or to gain some sort of legitimacy or endorsement by Wikipedia by having a link. They were added by non-affiliated third party members to this article because they're sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues or their amount of detail (such as movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks).
Per WP:EL any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article should not be linked. Meaning your site might be able to be used as a reliable source for encyclopedic content to integrate into this article and improve it, but probably shouldn't be linked on it's own - since it's a blog, personal web page and/or a fansite that is not written by a recognized authority. Hope that clarifies. Obviously others will weigh in, but at this point I can't see how this site differs from hundreds of fansites already out there, other than the loose family tie in. I mean I have the same last name as a famous politician - if created a website about him, would that entitle me to link my website from his Wikipedia page? Probably not. --Yankees76 Talk 21:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I understand perfectly well. Firstly, can you prove that they were "added" by "non-affiliated third party members" (and what does it matter anyway)? If you believe my claim, then that makes you a "non-affiliated third party member" who can then a approve the website: http//www.marilynmonroefamily.com . Secondly, the "EXTERNAL LINKS" ARE advertisement driven. I therefore rest my case on that issue. But again, you are not addressing the issue. What you call a "loose association" just hasn't been fully implemented as of yet. And you are attacking the messenger rather than the message. The key term here is "due diligence". Are you doing it? That is all that I am asking. Yes, the burden of proof is on me. However, instead of out-rightly rejecting something...please take the time to investigate. This is supposed to be an open forum where the evidence is fully weighed. I am sensing that this is not the case. A more mature response would be to let the evidence build and then we can make a decision as to the authenticy of the claim. Please do not get your feelings hurt by my statements. I am only making my point. Respectfully, Jason Kennedy Jasonekennedy (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No hurt feelings. I'd probably feel the same way if I wanted to put my site on here and had the link removed. You're not the first person who has struggled with our External Links guidelines when wanting to add their own site, and you won't be the last. And yes, I am a "non-affiliated third party member" who could add your link (even though I wouldn't for reasons outlined above) - and it would probably be pulled down by another editor or administrator just as fast as it was when you posted it. As for the current group of links - "advertisement driven" has nothing to do with these sites. It's not banner ads on the site that determine if they should be linked or not from here. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Yes, sites with excessive ads are usually not allowed, but they're also usually not allowed for other reasons. These sites - IMDB and LIFE in particular are linked from numerous movie industry pages on Wikipedia and are seen as reliable sources for having valuable or copyrighted content - details like Film credits etc., It's the same way every professional hockey player article has a link to Hockeydb.com. My point was Wikipedia itself is not the place to advertise or drive traffic to your site by linking to it. To me it seems like if we add your link you believe it will somehow legitimize your website, when in fact it should be the other way around. The material on your site needs to be able to add to what is already in this article.
BTW please re-read my post above - in particular the part that says they're sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues or their amount of detail (such as movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks).
I guess my question to you is - what material does your site offer that can't be incorporated into this article so as to justify a link? Is it the pictures of her non notable distant relatives? The blank "News" page? The YouTube video? I'm not trying to be belligerent - but with all due respect, the site has no content and promises of content is still not conent. Let's be rational here. Reverse roles for a moment and you'll see why two other people have already removed the page.--Yankees76 Talk 23:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So wait a minute, you initially state, "Links that are added to promote a site by the site operator or its affiliates should not be added. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links". And now you state, " As for the current group of links - "advertisement driven" has nothing to do with these sites (EXTERNAL SITES). It's not banner ads on the site that determine if they should be linked or not from here." So what is it?! You state one thing then claim another in just a couple of paragraphs! Then you revert back to your initial claim by stating, "My point was Wikipedia itself is not the place to advertise or drive traffic to your site by linking to it". Well no kidding! It's not a surprise to anyone that the proposed website SHOULD add something of value to the topic! But then you continue by stating what you think I believe, "you believe it will somehow legitimize your website". I NEVER stated that! And I am beginning to NOT appreciate this conversation with you! What I did state, is that instead of rejecting a proposed website offhandedly and at face-value, perform due diligence! That is exactly what I stated! You then continue your assault by being critical of the site content, not even acknowledging that the proposed site is in its initial launch (content is still being added). You go on to talk about that only verified reliable sources are acceptable, but haven't even taken the time to find out what verifiable resources I am going to provide. In other words, all you have done is chastized me and treated me with disrespect! And yes, I saw what you wrote about "who cares about distant relatives" before you deleted it! My grandmother IS Gladys's cousin! And she is still alive at 84 years old! I don't know who you are, but what you should have done was acknowledge the website at face-value and agreed to place it on hold until its importance could becomes further investigated. You have wasted my time with a bunch of petty, bad-tempered quarreling and you have NOT represented Wikipedia with professionalism! www.facebook.com/jasonedwardkennedy Jasonekennedy (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think our discussion is done. I've explained the situation for you with language that any rational person can understand; linked to the pertinent guidelines and even done due diligence by reviewing your website and it's content. Yet it's obvious you're missing the point entirely (as indicated by your puzzling first 3 sentences above, where you fail to grasp the concept of what advertising on Wikipedia is). And now instead of proposing intelligent and rational reasons why we should link your site you've resorted to strawman arguments, picking apart my attempts to explain the rationale why I don't think your site should not be added and now even personal attacks, none of which advance your position or increase the chances of your site being linked! Why would any other editor want to side with you now if this is how you act when you're challenged to show us why your site should be linked? You beg for us to perform due diligence and then get offended when it's pointed out your site as it sits now has nothing to offer! Please refer to WP:ELNO as was instructed by the first editor who removed your link. Better yet familiarize yourself with our External Links policy before you continue. Thanks and have a nice day. --Yankees76 Talk 12:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
And please provide a diff that backs up your accusation "And yes, I saw what you wrote about "who cares about distant relatives" before you deleted it!".
I don't take accusations of content that I never wrote (or wrote and then "deleted") lightly. If you're going to make false accusations in an attempt to defame my character, I'd like to see the evidence. Since Wikipedia tracks all changes to the site, you simply need to go to the History tab at the top of this talk page [1] and provide the diff.
Wait, since you're new to the site, I'll save you the trouble and do it for you. Is it this one?[2]? Nope, don't see it there. Okay what about this one?[3]. No, not in that edit either. Hmmm. This one? [4]. Not that one either!
So tell me. Considering I only made these three edits on this talk page before today, where did I write "who cares about distant relatives"? Oh wait, it's not there because it's just a figment of your overactive imagination. And you're talking about "professionalism" and "petty, bad-tempered quarreling"? Good one. --Yankees76 Talk 13:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already demonstrated that YOU are not even clear on the "rules" that you claim to know. You changed your story and can't even admit it! Adding links to "strawman" definitions doesn't support your argument, it only makes you appear desperate! Stating that you did due diligence when in fact, you initially and offhandedly rejected my site without any hesitation. You only ACTED when I made the point for you to act, and then you only performed again, a cursory inquiry only. AND furthermore, you can't even help yourself! You conclude your statement by stating "Oh wait, it's not there because it's just a figment of your overactive imagination". That is exactly the same attitude you carried when I initially proposed my site! AND it is the same sort of statement that you deleted on the previous conversation (yes, you did and I don't know where it went...you've been here for 5 years...you tell me)!

So let me get this straight. I made a "statement" but you don't know where it went? I just provided you links to all the statements I made on this page and a whole history of this talk page. The statement is not there. As I said - show me a diff. Wikipedia has a pretty easy-to-see history of everything posted here. It should be easy for you to find it if it existed outside of your imagination. Here's the Complete Diff and Link guide to help you [5] - just remember it won't help you find things I wrote that you're just making up.
And what you've demonstrated is not my lack of understanding of the guidelines, but your lack of comprehension. You've simply turned around your own obtuseness to try to make it look like I don't know what I'm talking about. Your whole campaign here has not been to help promote the merits of your site, but instead has been a campaign to make those who oppose the addition of a link to your site appear to be aggressors or idiots for not performing "due diligence", while expecting us to evaluate a site not based on current content, no, but instead based on content that could be added in the future; while expecting us to agree to place it "on hold until its importance could becomes further investigated". Anything else you'd like? Maybe a mention in the opening paragraph? What else can we concede to in order for you to "publically announce Marilyn's family history to the world?"
Even your tone on other editors talk pages asking them to not remove your link is confrontational - instead of asking for help, you demand your link not be removed - while leaving your facebook link as if it's some sort of authoritative signature. Then you have the gall to challenge the other links that are currently on the page and have been placed there by people who actually contribute to the article - writing them off as "Advertisements". And after it's demonstrated as to why they're not ads or spam links, you attack the person who has taken the time to educate you. Why? Because you can't comprehend how IMDB with thousands of pages of movie credits can be linked, while your own site with practically zero content useful to the creation and/or promotion of this article to a featured article isn't? Or were you going to pick a fight with any editor who opposed your agenda? You ask me to work with you and "take the time to do your due diligence" but you can't be bothered to take the time read and follow our own external links policy? Because if you had - this whole back and forth would have been done in 2 posts.

Documented statements YOU made along the same line: 1) ...loose family tie in. I mean I have the same last name as a famous politician - if created a website about him, would that entitle me to link my website from his Wikipedia page? Probably not.

2)Is it the pictures of her non notable distant relatives?

Non-notable. Two words that are commonly used around Wikipedia when determining if an individual should have their own Wikipedia biography. It's not derogatory. Try spending a little time on the site - you might learn a thing or two that could help you avoid asinine arguments like this. And making statements along the same line and actually making the statements are completely different.

You could have professionally ended this conversation by politely stating that you would place a hold on the site until further and future evaluation. Instead, you have been on the defensive. And please do point out ONE time I personally attacked you!

Accusations that are not supported by proof are personal attacks - WP:NPA#WHATIS and per WP:TALKNO - "be precise in quoting others". Since you quoted me - where did I say "who cares about distant relatives"?
And you could have respected the opinions of the three editors that removed your link instead of turning this into a giant argument over the merits of links that have been on the Marilyn Monroe article and other actor and celebrity articles for years. You could have rationally illustrated why your site deserved a link, and as instructed presented detail to support your claims.[6] If you spent half the energy you've used on attempting to discredit me and pick apart my own posts on actually providing something to support your claim, you might have something useful instead of a body of work on Wikipedia that consists of link spamming and arguing with people who actually know how the site works.

To further support my site: I bet you didn't know that Marilyn's Hogan relatives were with Daniel Boone! And yes, documented with reliable historical sources. OR that Marilyn had a Great + Uncle who was involved with Kentucky politics....and more....No, you haven't take the time to investigate anything...have you! All this ranting has been totally unnecessary...

Then add that information to the article citing a reliable source. Just because we didn't know this fact doesn't mean your site gets a link. Again, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article should not be linked. Please re-read WP:ELNO again. Use your knowledge and info to add content, not external links.
I'm finished with this. As noted before, per WP:ELNO, the link should not be added. Until proof is provided that this is a site owned or maintained by a recognized authority, or the person wishing to add the site can demonstrate that the site does not mislead the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research and provides a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article, then no, the site should not be linked.--Yankees76 Talk 19:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The link should not be re-added at this time. It does not add any info. of weight to the article. If the website changes in the future then it can be re-considered at that time, herein. Kierzek (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to remind all parties posting on this talkpage of WP:NPA and WP:NOTAFORUM. This talkpage is a place to post our thoughts about improving the article and discussing edits (not editors). Also, per my previous post earlier today, I do concur with Kierzek.Shearonink (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally a rational response...Thanks, I'll add more content for later evaluation. Jasonekennedy (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You still carrying on? Don't worry...I'm done, I already made my point! Jasonekennedy (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, a month and a half later the site remains unupdated since August 21, and is being used as a soapbox to encourage people to boycott Marilyn Monroe products from Marylin Monroe LLC, Authentic Brands Group, and CMG Worldwide. WP:COI. My rationale behind removing links to this site from Wikipedia stands. --Yankees76 Talk 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What is even more interesting is that are still commenting on this...furthermore, your statement is completely false, the site has been updated with much more documents... and that is exactly why we continue to grow...But I know you would rather play games than take the time to verify anything yourself. But you are right about one thing...we are not happy with Anna Strasberg. And if you have a problem with that, then you can ask Marilyn if she was happy about that! Have a nice day... JKennedy— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.130.208 (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, what is important for you to understand is that after talking to most of the relatives on the Hogan side... everyone agree's Marilyn fame is being abused...therefore as relatives, we have a right to speak up about what is going on....Maybe you would feel the same way if Marilyn was your cousin.... JKennedy— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.130.208 (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to take sides in disputes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press or a forum for advertising and promoting yourself or your ideas. And why wouldn't I follow up? Since your primary argument for inclusion of the link to your site was that it was only a "proposed" site and we needed to do our "due diligence", one would expect a follow up lest we be accused further of not doing due diligence. So the questions remain: Does the site now provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article? Has the site since been updated with documented information from reliable sources that sheds new light on Miss Monroe's life? From what I can tell now, no. It's primary reason to exist appears to be to lead a boycott of Marilyn Monroe products - which is an incompatibility with the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. Now do your own due diligence and give WP:COI a read. Have a nice day! --Yankees76 Talk 17:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yankees76, I previously had already agreed that since content was lacking on my site that I would NOT resubmit my request until I developed it further. And since then, I did NOT come back on here begging for your permission to list my site. Yet, you decided to chime in again, and talk about "removing links to this site from Wikipedia stands". Were any links posted on Wikipedia? NO! Did I resubmit my request to link my site? NO! Furthermore, I am not in the business of letting your "requirements" dictate what I do with my site. In fact, after adding much more content in the form of public and personal documents, I had decided NOT to worry about Wikipedia. That is why you did NOT see me back on here again! Your statements do NOT demonstrate any due diligence on your part...but what it does demonstrate is a continuation of your earlier personal attacks on my claims. And REMEMBER, before you rattle on again, I DID NOT RESUBMIT MY SITE! Therefore, mindlessly reciting Wikipedia rules and verbalizing your opinions are POINTLESS and simply argumentative...bye! Jasonekennedy (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Since marilynmonroefamily.com is a fan site it wouldn't be accepted under WP:EL as an official external link, and since the owner or publisher of site is not a recognized expert on the subject of this article and the site does not contain anything like a unique Filmography or something similar that couldn't be added to the article it would also fail WP:EL. And since its' not a reliable source to be used a reference in this article this whole discussion is rather pointless. I'm surprised this conversation has lasted this long. I'm closing this section to avoid any further personal attacks from single purpose accounts. --Quartet 14:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Marilyn monroe statue in Chicago.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Marilyn monroe statue in Chicago.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 129.116.127.193, 3 October 2011

There are references to sexual assault that Norma Jeane endured while living with Grace and Doc Goddard; however, the newest biography on Marilyn (by J. Randy Taraborrelli) claims there is no proof to this story. Which leads me to the greater issue, these sources are old and outdated. Taraborrelli's work is the most recent and has acquired interviews from others who had previously not spoken out. Please consider cleaning up this section as your information is speculation based on old source material.

You also completely gloss over the suspicious activity around her death. In Marilyn's Last Words, there is sufficient evidence to show that her death was more like a homicide than suicide.

129.116.127.193 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Per the Edit Request template:

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
Why not register for an account, source the information you want to add and do it yourself? On semi-protected articles, anyone can edit them after they become an auto-confirmed editor - which is an easy process that occurs after 10 edits & 4 days after registration. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are not going to help find the information you should lay off being bossy. Some people don't have the time or the know-how to edit/update everything properly but notice errors and would like to point it out to those who have nothing else to do and care about the facts and truth. As well, I thought this discussion page was to 'discuss' anything related to the contents of the page, not to belittle the users.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.225.195 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Many IP editors who post on the talk pages of semi-protected articles are new to Wikipedia and do not realize that any autoconfirmed editor can edit semi-protected articles, they don't have to ask someone else to do it at all. Many IP editors also appreciate information about how to navigate Wikipedia's guidelines. Shearonink (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

File:SC04765 Marilyn Monroe in Chicago.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SC04765 Marilyn Monroe in Chicago.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

First Marriage (submitted October 20, 2011)

This storyline leaves off with Jim joining the Merchant Marines. The next talk of her romances is when she began dating Joe DiMaggio. Nothing of their divorce or the events leading up to it is mentioned. Unless its somewhere out of order that I am just not seeing, this should be corrected if any information is known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.225.195 (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is merely protected from vandalism from unregistered users. Why don't you register an account, find information in reliable sources and then add cited facts about Monroe's marital states to the article? Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Have one, fully aware of how it works, not necessary to log in just to make a suggestion on a discussion board, as its not an actual edit. Don't know what the topic of vandalism has to do with pointing out that her first divorce was omitted from the storyline. Hope if anyone finds the correct information that it will be updated Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.225.195 (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I assumed when you posted from an IP that you were a new/unregistered editor and so didn't realize that anyone can actually edit a semi-protected article so long as they are auto-confirmed.
As to the matter of what happened to Dougherty, the Relationships section details their divorce upon his return from the Merchant Marines. The article is written in somewhat chronological order, so I can see how Dougherty going missing from the narrative could be jarring to the reader. Much of the article's content gets constantly written and re-written by fans but if sourced information is indeed available then, I agree, whatever happened between Dougherty and Monroe upon his return (reunion/problems/divorce/etc) should be added within the main body of the article. Shearonink (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Medal of Freedom

Related to this question on List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients, is there any truth that Monroe was awarded this medal or the earlier Medal of Freedom? I cannot find any credible sources on this matter. Monroe was added to the list of recipients but then was deleted from it again without sources being given either way. She supposedly got the medal in 1952 which strikes me a odd seeing as she was relatively unknown then and the medal was apparently given that year for her performances in Korea for US troops even though I can't find a reference for her even being in Korea until two years later. --Kalsermar (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I can find no documentation that Monroe won the Medal of Freedom. The only mention I can find of any type of "medal" being awarded to Miss Monroe in this general timeframe is the dog tag given to her in 1954 by the U.S. Far East command (as seen here). This listing is from the May 2006 Hunt auction of DiMaggio/Monroe memorabilia. Hope this helps, --Shearonink (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your input in this matter Shearonink. --Kalsermar (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Photographer

I want to check a fact before editing: who took the publicity photo of her for the film Niagara, (as used by Andy Warhol),
was it Frank Powolny (http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5138213) or Gene Korman (http://www.webexhibits.org/colorart/marilyns.html)
QuentinUK (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing a semi-protected page

I am currently an undergraduate at George Mason University. For our English class, we must edit our biographical subject Wikipedia page (mine being Marilyn Monroe). Her page is currently semi-protected. I can only edit two of the main articles from her page. I had previously sent a request for temporary editing permission, but I'm assuming I sent it to the wrong forum...or something of that sort. I'm very lost, to say the least and I would greatly appreciate it if I would be granted that permission in order to pass my final. Thank you for your time and assistance.

--Jnkeeler (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Jnkeeler

I removed the template, which is used – as content, not in a section title – to request another editor to make a specific change when you cannot do so.
In your case, you might want to check WP:AUTOCONFIRM. As a registered account, you already meet the time requirement; just a few more (productive) edits on unprotected articles should get you the auto-confirmed status necessary to edit here, and might be most efficient overall. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Marilyn Monroe Comm Stamp 1995.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Marilyn Monroe Comm Stamp 1995.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Cause of Death Conjectures

"Though officially classified as a "probable suicide", the possibility of an accidental overdose, as well as the possibility of homicide, have not been ruled out.". Not been ruled out by whom? The police, the FBI, or the conspiracy theorists? I feel that this statement should be modified so that it doesn't look like an official stance.124.120.165.165 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC).

Madison's Square Garden 2011.jpg

I added a new image to the Marilyn Monroe article in the section of the article where it says "Last films: 1958-1962" the name of the image is: Madison's Square Garden 2011.jpg I own the image because I obtained my self by taking a snapshot of it on my trip to NYC in August of 2011 (last year) and the reason of why I added that image to that article was because it demonstrates her because she went there on May 19th, 1962 to sing happy birthday to our 35th President ([[John F. Kennedy)) on his 45th birthday I hope all of you wikipedia administrators like it thanks!Ilovechoclate 00:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs)

Actually, no. Neither MM nor JFK ever set foot in the new Madison Square Garden adjacent to Penn Station, since they both had been dead for several years when it was completed in 1968.

2 sections

I added to new images to the Marilyn Monroe article one on "Leading Films" because the image had to do with one of those years and another one to the section "Last Films" because that other image also had to do with those yearsIlovechoclate (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference to "Smash" in Portrayals?

I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to list the new NBC series Smash, seeing as it is about the production of a musical based on Marilyn Monroe's career and part of her life. Thoughts? TheBigFish (talk) 05:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Infobox

Somebody fouled up the Infobox in Marilyn Monroe's article.

Anthony22 (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is, but if you see errors in this article's infobox, then feel free to fix it. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You didn't see the issue, because somebody fixed the problem before you looked at the article.

Anthony22 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Eisenstaedt-Monroe-Life-1953.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Eisenstaedt-Monroe-Life-1953.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Eisenstaedt-Monroe-Life-1953.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Van Nuys is not a city

The article says that Van Nuys is another city in Los Angeles county. In fact, Van Nuys is just a part of Los Angeles. The phrase "another city in Los Angeles county" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asbasb (talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I fixed that. You're right, VN is actually just part of LA, but I can understand that it would become confusing since a lot of cities are part of LAC. ★Dasani★ 00:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Near the end of the section Early work: 1945–1947, the name Marilyn Monroe is bolded for no apparent reason. This is not among the exceptions permitting boldface other than in the lead section as stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Other uses, and it should therefore be unbolded. Thanks. --213.168.119.30 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Shearonink (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --213.168.119.30 (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2012

I notice that Katharine McPhee was left out as a portrayer of Marilyn Monroe in the tv show Smash, as well as Uma Thurman. 76.189.12.228 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Errors and Requests?

I would just like to start off by saying that there are so many errors withing this article. Hypersexuality, substance abuse? First, Marilyn Monroe had an early fear of sex, and didn't even sleep in the same bed as Dougherty for about two weeks after they were married. They were not really in love, too. While they were fond of each other and did love each other, they weren't "in love". And as for substance abuse (which is actually abusing drugs, which is illegal, which are often unprescribed drugs), Marilyn only reluctantly took the pills that Greenson prescribed for her. Plus, the Goddards were a MAJOR part of her life! While some of this article I approve of, some is completely wrong and insane speculations. I also think that we should have a whole part on reasons why people thought that she was murdered. I've read about three books on JUST that subject, and I can write a thesis on it by now. Finally, Marilyn's last phone call was not the president. It was officially Lee Strasberg ("And say goodbye to yourself, 'cause you're a good guy). Bobby was in the area and had visited her in LA days before her death, and she talked to her stepson, DiMaggio, earlier, bright and optimistic for her future plans that involved remarrying Joe and filming Something's Got to Give again. Sources? Marilyn Monroe historian all of my life. Serioudly, the first book that I picked out on my own was a Marilyn picture book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnitaNayaLove (talk • contribs) 00:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Your personal hobbies do not qualify as sources. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit too personal, but if you are really Monroe's "historian" you would notice that Dougherty published two books citing that he took her virginity on their wedding night. Additionally, the reasons would violate NPOV, consistency, and reliable sources. Who's the historian? ★Dasani★ 00:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2012

Marilyn's mother, Gladys Pearl Monroe, was born on May 27, 1902, in Porfirio Diaz, Mexico, now Piedras Negras, to Otis Elmer Monroe and Della Mae Hogan. Mike3000gt71 (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

According to what source? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Gladys' findagrave.com entry (with links to her parents' entries) agrees with Piedras Negras as her birthplace, and should provide sufficient search terms to find a Reliable Source (RS); once you post one, you can reactivate the request. Dru of Id (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Be careful about making assumptions about findagrave. About the only reliable information there is the location of tombstones, which themselves might or might not have the correct dates. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Smash

This article only mentions Megan Hilty and Uma Thurman as playing Marylin in the series Smash, but it is Katharine McPhee playing the fictional actress Karen Cartwright who actually lands the lead role as Marylin in the production of Bombshell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_McPhee and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1897713/— Preceding unsigned comment added by TanDo2000 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Albert Einstein & Marilyn had a tryst

In Shelly Winters' autobiography, she related how she & Marilyn had been roommates in Hollywood as young, struggling actresses in 1947. They discussed men that they would like to 'sleep' with. "I want to sleep with Albert Einstein", said Marilyn and she did! As they both were single at the time, it would best be described as a tryst. But 'the math was all wrong' as Einstein was 47 years older than her. There are letters between the two that still exist and are part of the Einstein Letters housed at Hebrew University in Israel. This tryst between the most famous man and woman of the 20th century was discussed in-depth at the 2004 Einstein Conference at the Aspen Institute. This article should include, Albert Einstein & Marilyn had a tryst. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

children

Actually, it was believed in some very close circles during the late 1950’s that her miscarriage in 1957 was NOT a miscarriage at all as previously reported in August & September of 1957 , and that Arthur Miller was instrumental in staging most of it so as to look that way because Marilyn didn’t want it widely known at the time she had a baby because she felt it would ruin her career and the life of her baby (believed to be a boy) so Arthur orchestrated and consciously bribed certain hospital staff members with unknown amounts of money and gifts and even some physicians on duty at that time in New York were it is suggested she and Arthur were rarely seen in public during this time as well. This of course was dismissed by both Mr. Miller and Ms. Monroe later that year, does this ever make you wonder…so who really knows, but if she did indeed have a child this would have been the perfect time-frame in which it would have happened because of the factual notion of a small belly bump and some say larger hips during this time period and that in fact she gained some 30+ pounds and lost very little of that weight while filming “Some Like it Hot” several months down the road and quite obviously visible in the film as well. Guaranteed, somebody knows something but is never going to say a word, perhaps because of the secrecy revolving around her death. I can’t say as I blame these folks if they do indeed know something, and keep in mind during that time period it was probably easier than we think to fake a lot of paperwork or in this case intentionally lose documents for right amount of money. Just think for a moment if you were in her shoes…would you do the same thing? This woman really wanted a child and spoke about it very openly, being a mother myself I’d consider it if I were her. A few years back a hand full of us look-up some stuff in the New York archives of births in and around that time period and all the birth records were missing…ever since then my friends and I believe this was intentional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.74.105 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Every publication I have read stated that she did miscarry. The 50-year Monroe death celebration issue of Life cites that she had several ectopic pregnancies. Where did you look up the birth records? Many sites offer such information online. Spelling Style (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Fashion

In addition to William Travilla, who is mentioned in the article, Marilyn Monroe worked with fashion designers Oleg Cassini, Ceil Chapman, Dorothy Jeakins, Elois Jenssen, Charles LeMaire, Don Loper, and Jean Louis. References: http://artinfo.com/photo-galleries/slideshow-marilyn-monroe-tk?image=4; Marilyn in Fashion: The Enduring Influence of Marilyn Monroe by Christopher Nickens, George Zeno Jul 3, 2012 ISBN: 9780762443321, Published by Running Press. Mrs Skylark (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Really?

I'm sorry..I HAD to say this...of all the pictures of Marilyn there are..Wiki picks THAT ONE for her biography page??? Really????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.149.251 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the anon IP has a point. There are other, more representative pictures of Monroe right in the article already, so one of these presumably fair-use images would be better than that uncharacteristic one currently in the infobox. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Baker?

This page used to say one of her former surnames was Baker. Why was that removed? I read that her mother changed her surname to Baker after marriage. As a child, she was often confused with both surnames of Mortenson and Baker. Spelling Style (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 September 2012

The Ella Fitzgerald quote refers to the Mocambo nightclub. The Mocambo has its own Wikipedia page but the word isn't blue i.e. It isn't hyperlinked. Maybe because words in quotes aren't linked? If not please link it. Many thanks 3Edu4All (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Shearonink (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion

At the bottom of the page, it says Monroe was a pentecostal convert. That is not true. She was raised a Christian Scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.164.192 (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request re External Links, Nov 16, 2012

Please replace the link for "Playboy Online" with the following:

Playboy Wiki consolidates links for other official Playboy sites. At PB Wiki, the links for "Playboy Online" are in "Playboy.com Previews". Frankly, the current link for "Playboy Online" is embarrassingly inadequate. Marilyn deserves a better link from Playboy. Thanks. Wikilister (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Some Like It Hot

Some Like It Hot was distributed by United Artists, no for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. --186.182.145.201 (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Should early life section contain reference to Radioplane OQ-2 page?

I am not sure of the protocol for wiki pages, but there is a short segment of Marilyn's life where she worked at the Radioplane OQ-2 factory. She is referenced on that page with a link to this page. "It was at this factory that in 1944 Army photographer David Conover saw a young woman assembler named Norma Jeane Dougherty, whom he thought had potential as a model. She was photographed in the plant, which led to a screen test for Norma Jeane, who soon changed her name to Marilyn Monroe."

Should not there be a reverse link and mention back to the Radioplane OQ-2 page? --Pcwalden (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)pcwalden

Speaking of MM's early life section, I added the following Life magazine portfolio to her External Links section: Marilyn Monroe: Early Photos, 1950. I trust nobody will complain? Asteriks (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Theatrical film appearances: director of "Scudda Hoo! Scudda Hay!"

According to Donald Spoto: Marilyn Monroe - Die Biographie (page 121, german) and the international movie database the director of the film Scudda Hoo! Scudda Hay! is F. Hugh Herbert, not Hugh Herbert, who is someone else. --Slowrider (Editor of the German Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.148.52 (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Miss Globe International 1947?

Our Miss Globe Organisation article states that Norma Jeane won the Miss Globe International pageant in 1947, although the source provided may not be a very RS. I could not see (is there?) any reference to this award in this article. If there is not, we should find a good source and add the info. If there already is a mention and I skipped it, sorry for taking other users' time in vain. --E4024 (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Question concerning the nude Playboy photograph of Marilyn Monroe

I just noticed the new photograph of a nude Marilyn Monroe from Playboy's inaugural December, 1953 issue. I've seen this photograph before, but I haven't seen it on Wikipedia until now. This is an excellent photo of one of the most beautiful women of the twentieth century.

The publication of this photo in the article on Marilyn Monroe raises a few issues that are debatable. First and foremost, is the picture classified as art, eroticism, or pornography? Who knows, it could be all three. Second, has the publication of the photo created any backlash from parents or religious groups? Wikipedia is a family encyclopedia that is not tracked by porn filters. Is the photo appropriate for an 8-year-old child to see? A lot of parents would not approve of their pre-teen child viewing such an image.

I use YouTube all the time, and as far as I know, the site does not permit nude videos to be uploaded.

I also remember a few repercussions from the cover on the Sports Illustrated annual Winter Swimsuit Issue. The models are very provocative, but at least they are clothed. One nun wrote in and said, "My copy was burned immediately, and the subscription will cease." A priest commented that he was concerned that such an erotic image on a magazine cover was sitting on his front desk.

Obviously, a web site can set its own standards for the publication of erotic images. The photo of Monroe is certainly not illegal, but it might be inappropriate for minor children. I'm not a prude, and the freedom of the Internet is a great thing, but he question remains, "Is the nude photo of Marilyn Monroe appropriate for everyone who uses Wikipedia?"

Anthony22 (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate either, but it is also important to remember that nude pictures DO exist on Wikipedia, and there are articles about those body parts which have images of nude people, as well there are images of sexual acts on those pages. It's not possible to completely prevent youth from accessing these pages.

Despite that, I don't think that image of Monroe belongs on the page, there are a lot of pictures of her clothed on the page already, it's just unnecessary.

Devrit 23:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is not a "family encyclopedia" and is WP:NOTCENSORED. Being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for removal (or inclusion) of content. Provided the image is treated in an encyclopedic manner, the fact that she is topless is not sufficient grounds for removal. This image is a unique historic image, and arguably the most well-known single photograph of the subject of the article. There's really no reason why it shouldn't be in the article. Yankees76 Talk 13:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

121.74.76.191 (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC) As a parent I am concerned about the use of this photograph, because the Wikipedia article comes up when using Google SafeSearch on web search engines designed for kids. I also did not want to see the photograph myself. If the photo cannot be removed please have a warning at the top of the page, for example - "WARNING THIS PAGE CONTAINS NUDE IMAGES" or something similar. 121.74.76.191 (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it's Wikipedia's job to ensure that your children are not exposed to images that you may or may not want them to see. While the picture is currently removed for other reasons noted below, there will not be a "Warning" placed on the page should the same or other nude images be added. If you're concerned about what content your children view online, you should make it your responsibility to monitor and censor their web surfing, not ours. Yankees76 Talk 20:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Since Monroe was also a professional model, there are countless photos of her in magazines. This particular one is from a calendar and centerfold of Playboy, and although a well-known image for obvious reasons, it also distracts from her bio. I'll be bold and add a similar but more neutral cover image from the same issue. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I concur. Those who wish to see the nudes can easily find them on Google. The use of a nude picture doesn't add to the encyclopedic content of the article in any significant way. Icarus of old (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The cover of the 1st issue of playboy cant be used on muti pages here. Theworm777 (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Because....? Icarus of old (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The copyright tag on it is why it can't be used. The nude photo is up for deletion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:1953_Playboy_centerfold.jpg. and should not be removed right now anyways. Theworm777 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
As I stated therein, it should be deleted - As all of you know, there are plenty of other images of Marilyn that can be used without the same problems per NFCC#8, by fair use doctrine and don't distract from the article per WP:UNDUE. Kierzek (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The picture used above the biography of Marilyn

I believe this is a promotional photograph for Marilyn's movie Ladies of the Chorus. It's only a small note I would like to make, but this would date the photograph c. 1948 as Ladies of the Chorus was released 1949. My only source for this is http://doctormacro.com, a high quality 20s-50s movie scans website which has always been 100% reliable for myself when I have checked other sources. If this is correct, which I am 99.9% sure it is, this would date the profile photograph as 1948 and not the stated 1950. I also know this having studied photographs of Marilyn from that period of time, and this resembles Marilyn more from 1948 as by 1949 she had dyed her hair a light blonde. Thanks.

HJO, 25/03/2013 5.27am.

Good find. I will change it to c. 1948 - 1949. If it is reverted then we can leave it blank until we have consensus. You may wish to pop over to commons and see if any of our low resolution images have better versions from that site. It did for this image and I replaced it already.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The new dates seem accurate per DrMacro's site. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 June 2013

Under songs could someone put Who Killed Marilyn by The Misfits. They also took their band name from her movie of the same name. Here's a link for source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfits_%28band%29 71.90.154.130 (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Done with this edit. Thanks. Begoon talk 11:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Latest news

Some info from these can be added: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/marilyn-monroe8217s-death-sex-with-jfk-taped-by-private-eye-fred-otash/story-fni0fee2-1226661161975 and http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/NorthAmerica/Detective-taped-Monroe-and-John-F-Kennedy-having-sex/Article1-1072606.aspx ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If this information were to be added, rather than a quote of the story from another source, it would be better to use the Hollywood Reporter where it originally appeared in Rock Hudson's Wife Secretly Recorded His Gay Confession. Frankly, I am not sure what encyclopedic value there would be in using this information and am concerned about WP:GOSSIP. Otash stated many things in his papers but somehow the tapes that would prove these assertions have all disappeared & there doesn't appear to be any independent corroboration... Are readers expected to take his statements at face value? It is possible this information could be added to the Fred Otash article, but adding it to this article or any of the associated articles (Robert Kennedy, JFK, Peter Lawford, etc) simply bothers me. Shearonink (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Shearonink. What is "reported" in tabloid fashion is what the now deceased PI Otash "claimed". The tapes are not available, if they ever existed; if they did, they cannot be confirmed. So per, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE it should not be included. As for JFK and Monroe, the fact is that the extent of their relationship will never be known. Historian Dallek, for example, only goes as far as saying, "their alleged relationship" which Lawford denied; and states it would appear there was "more than a casual acquaintance". An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917–1963, p. 581. Apparently they did spend a weekend together in March 1962 while Kennedy was staying at Bing Crosby's house and she made calls to the White House in 1962, but there is a lot of speculation and conjuncture which makes good copy to sell books and magazines but is WP:GOSSIP, overall. Kierzek (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The article on James Dougherty states that he married Norma after the Goddards relocated to West Virginia. The article on Marilyn states that she married Dougherty after the Goddards relocated to Virginia. Anyone have a definitive reference to clarify which state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.2.16.188 (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed this article to West to match the source of the other one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Drug Addiction and Abuse

This entire article seems scrubbed clean of Monroe's drug addiction and abuse. The word "drug" only appears once in the entire article, and the mention of barbiturates found in her system by the coroner. Please add a section. ~ 67.0.212.221 (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this article is being kept squeaky clean. The famous and iconic nude calendar/Playboy image was removed as well. I gave up after that. You could try to adding sourced and notable material but good luck trying to keep it in. You may just give up as I did.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Judaism

In the infobox it says she converted to Judaism in 1956... has anybody provided a reliable sources to prove this?--DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There are several in Personal life of Marilyn Monroe, where topics of her personal life are covered in more detail. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I added a reference for her conversion to the infobox. Shearonink (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nude image

What is the reason to remove the centerfold image of Playboy even after adding three references explaining both its visual appearance and its historical relevance? Adding a whole paragraph explaining the subject can't be considered edit warring, and yet the image is being removed without explanation. Diego (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Since it was removed several months ago, there has been no objection or further discussion on it. The burden is on an editor to add something to an article. The main fact is that it is a non-free image and frankly there are plenty of other images of Marilyn that can be used without the same problem, by fair use doctrine which don't distract from the article per WP:UNDUE. The image is already used on the Playboy article page which is where a better fair use argument can be made; said image you added there today; further you can link to that page for that image if you wish. Kierzek (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The image is used in the Playboy article because you have removed it from here (it's been there for about fifty minutes now), but I still consider it more relevant here (there are many Playboy playmates, but there's only one Marilyn). The situation is not the same as several months ago. Have you noticed how there are now three references and I added a whole new paragraph describing the significance of the image to the article? Your claim of undue weight has no weight of its own. (Also the Playboy article is not really a good place to have the image - it already includes a non-free image). I'm moving the image again from the Playboy article to its proper place here. Please note that Wikipedia is not censored, we don't remove well-referenced content only because some people find it distracting. Diego (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
You do not as of yet have a new consensus, and I never said anything about censorship; I still believe the Playboy article is the best place for it, if at all, under the fair use argument made for this clearly non-free use photo. Kierzek (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
It was possibly the two calendar images that were more notable than the Playboy image. Hefner bought one from Kelley for use in the first issue after all the publicity over the calendars. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50919224/Marilyn%20calendars%201953%201952.png is a cropped and scaled image of those that we could consider for the article. The original and more detail are at http://www.marilynmonroe.ca/camera/calendar/index.html --Canoe1967 (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion a calender image should be used here...Modernist (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded the image and added it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
What would Monroe say? Per the supporting commentary, "she had posed for the photographs, but emphasized that she had done so only because she had no money to pay her rent." Are we taking advantage of that fact? Most of the commentary about the photo explains how Playboy benefited from Hugh Hefner's luck. Should we unilaterally decide that what's good for Playboy is good for Wikipedia?
We are not to decide what is good for either but what is good for our readers. Hefner only sold 50k magazines but the calendars sold in the millions long before Hefner got the Playboy idea. These were probably the first nude calendars ever mass produced if not the first produced in any quantity. If we don't show our readers what all the hype was about then they will just assume censorship. As stated before it is probably the most famous and iconic image of her. The air vent one is probably the second.--

Canoe1967 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Compare that paragraph about the nude photo with the next paragraph, where she was more than happy with Alfred Eisenstaedt's more neutral photos. Maybe we'd be helping her bio more by adding a non-free from his shoot instead. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand and respect what you are saying. However as I mentioned back in April - this calender image contributed to making her enormously famous if not infamous in the conservative 1950s. This important image was responsible for putting her squarely into the American male consciousness and kept it there. Frankly I adore her in all her guises; she was one of a kind and enormously special in everything that she did including these unbelievably compelling pictures. Do you realize how many nude calender images there were in the 40s and 50s and how astonishingly forgettable most of them are. This was an important career boost for Marilyn, this was one of the reasons for her tremendous success and we should include it. These are part of her legacy; and her uniqueness...Modernist (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. There are four images I'd expect to find in an encyclopedic coverage of this character: the calendar photos, the blows on her skirt on Lexington, "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend", and Andy Warhol's series (which is missing and not even mentioned in text, BTW). These three are the more salient examples of graphical coverage that have defined her look in popular culture. Diego (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There's the related issue of what to do with the centerfold image. Now that this article includes images of the calendars, the Playboy article is the natural place to display the previous image. That usage is consistent with all the NFCC criteria and guidelines, as a low-resolution copy of a historic image critically discussed in text. I was concerned about having it together with the issue's cover, so I've moved the cover to the lead section so that they don't collide in the same paragraph. Diego (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Most of the reasons given by Canoe1967 and Modernist for including it are reasonable rationales, except almost none of those facts are in the article. There is no mention of the millions of calendars or 50K Playboys sold. Nothing about it being the first nude calendar and nothing about it being the "most famous iconic image". Nothing about it making her "enormously famous if not infamous," nothing about it putting her in the "male consciousness," and nothing about it being an important career boost to her "tremendous success."
So while the nude photo is supportable, it is still as yet unsupported and out of place. From the single paragraph discussing it, it would fit better in Hugh Hefner's article, since it clearly supports his own career's boost and magazine's success. --Light show (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
We could quote Marilyn herself then from most US news on March 13, 1952. "Oh, the calendar's hanging in garages all over town. Why deny it? You can get one any place. Besides, I'm not ashamed of it. I've done nothing wrong." We could keep expanding the section but others may whine that it is too large now. It was very big news back then and should easily be included now. Hefner didn't make a dime on the calendars so I don't know why you would want them in his article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't want them in his article, but was just noting that nearly half the paragraph discussing them -the last 3 sentences- is about him and the magazine.--Light show (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The image started with Marilyn needing $50 and she called Kelley in 1949 to book the nude shoot. The pictures sat in a drawer until Kelley sold them to the calendar company in 1952 for $900. The scandal happened over the calendars. Hefner got in on the tail end and only paid $500 in 1953 when it had blown over.[1] I don't see why you don't want any of it included here as this is where it all started.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Because a statement that she once needed $50, so she took a job posing nude, would not really be enough to support the non-free image in her bio. Many editors have said they don't like seeing the nude of her in the article, therefore it should be well supported with context to her life, not Kelley's or Hefner's. --Light show (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT is just an essay though. Not policy nor guideline. The source already in the article states 8 Million calendars printed. The Playboy article states only 53,991 issues. [2][3][4] Those are the sources from the article. We can add the material above that you claimed was false if you wish to verify how iconic and revolutionary these images were. They are of Marilyn and therefore should belong in her article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall saying anything was "false," so what are you referring to? As for the iconic and revolutionary aspects of the photos, there still needs to be a sourced linkage of relevance to her own life or career, which is still missing. The fact that millions of the calendars were sold is useful, but the person in the photo was still anonymous at the time, so their relevance to her own life should be supported. --Light show (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
If you read the sources you will find that she wasn't anonymous at the time of the first calendar release in 1952. One source states that the calendars were the first of their kind as opposed to backroom hidden images and National Geographic African ones. That is why Kelley was approached for nudes. The calendar company wanted nudes to start a new 'trend' in sexuality in 1952. Marilyn was recognized within months and her images became the main vehicle for a sexual revolution which also includes Playboy's 1st issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
There's no need to convince editors on a talk page about all this by suggesting they read sources. The article is defective on the topic and needs to be fixed. And again, this is an article about a person, not one about a magazine, calendar, photo, revolution, social trends, or a photographer. Since you seem to have all the sourced facts, why don't you just fix it? As for you saying she was not anonymous, you might also want to rephrase the sentence in the article that implies the opposite: "The press speculated about the identity of the anonymous model . . ." --Light show (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
My local library just moved and all the Marilyn books are still in boxes. Other editors probably have copies or working libraries. Some of the sources quote books so it would be nice to get page numbers etc. We could also contact some of her fan clubs to see if they can provide book page scans in cloud storage for us to work with. This book by Jerome Charyn is heavily quoted. This book by Anthony Summers is another. This one too.[5]--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.durangodowntown.com/kelleystudio/tksr.htm
  2. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=rvwH7euUccIC&lpg=PA75&dq=marilyn+playboy&hl=en&pg=PA75&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=marilyn%20playboy&f=false
  3. ^ http://books.google.es/books?id=xL0cGu1ISVEC&lpg=PA16&dq=marilyn+playboy&hl=en&pg=PA16&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=marilyn%20playboy&f=false
  4. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=7SUqJZXVWLsC&lpg=PA157&dq=marilyn+playboy&hl=en&pg=PA157&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=marilyn%20playboy&f=false
  5. ^ Riese, Randall; Hitchens, Neal (1987). The Unabridged Marilyn, Her Life From A to Z. New York: Congdon & Weed. ISBN 978-0-517-65075-2.

ZELDA ZONK

Marilyn Monroe also used the pseudonim Zelda Zonk: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelda_(given_name)‎--Europa 19:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Bernstein (talk • contribs)

Marilyn Monroe in art

File:In the style of Andy Warhol.jpg
Andy Warhol, Marilyn Monroe


Feineseideda (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe

Norma Jeane Montenson, best known as Marilyn Monroe, was born on June the 1st, 1926, Los Angeles California.She did not have a normal childhood because she spent most of it in a foster home.Although it was tough, she still did not let a little thing like that stop her from achieve her goal or dream.Because many years later she became a national super star and changed her name to Marilyn Monroe.As you all probably know, Marilyn,was American and had four jobs. She was an actress, singer, model and film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.89.178 (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Another song relating to Marilyn Monroe is unmentioned in the current Wiki article about Marilyn Monroe. It is regarding Marilyn Monroe's & John Fitzgerald Kennedy's affair. It was released in 1988. This song was originally recorded in French, by Vanessa Paradis. It was written by Etienne Roda-Gil and Franck Langolff and can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtFjwNhyKGs There is also an English version, also performed by Vanessa Paradis, that didn't translate all that well-it can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jvc8gAnix8w

Here are links to the appropriate Wiki pages regarding Vanessa Paradis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa_Paradis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa_Paradis_discography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%26J and another, in French, directly relating to the song: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_et_John


BobJMeyer (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"Miscarriage"

I am appalled that the article talks about Monroe's supposed "miscarriage," yet the article does not even mention that Monroe herself is quoted saying that her babies did not actually die, but they were taken from her and the miscarriage was a hoax. You would think that would be significant enough to add to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.116.117 (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Still Alive?

Wasn't Marilyn Monroe's grave found to be empty? I believe that speculation of her still being alive, perhaps living in Nova Scotia, is notable enough to add to the article. I believe the likelihood that Monroe faked her own death is very high, especially considering the FBI 2006 release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.116.117 (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to post unsourced theories and speculation. To back up such a claim about a well-known individual, you would need to find multiple reliable sources that state your case and either add them to the article or post them here on the talkpage for further discussion. Shearonink (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe the Face Model for Lara Croft

Marilyn Monroe was the Face Model for Lara Croft Games (Legend, Anniversary and Underworld). http://www.morphthing.com/celebrity/42190638-Marilyn-Monroe-Angelina-Jolie-Lara-Croft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.246.215.221 (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. You need to find a reliable source that says so, perhaps a New York Times article or maybe an interview from the game's designers published in PC Gamer...something like that. Shearonink (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Only this Video I have found. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT_wom7-bZI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.246.222.46 (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
And this two Pictures. But I think, this is not enough for an fact: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Marilyn_Monroe_Niagara.png http://s.pro-gmedia.com/videogamer/media/images/gc/lara_croft_tomb_raider_legend/screens/lara_croft_tomb_raider_legend_3.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.246.222.46 (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you're right. If it is something that perhaps is a theory or just seems self-evident but is unpublished then Wikipedia cannot use the information. It would have to be information contained in articles or interviews published in a reliable source that has editorial oversight...The Nerdist.Com, PC Gamer, major news outlets like the BBC, India Times, Paris Match, Variety, Times of London, etc A YouTube video is usually considered a source to be avoided for Wikipedia referencing purposes. Shearonink (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2014

An offer from a neighborhood family to adopt her was proposed, but Gladys rejected the offer.

Please change to "A neighborhood family offered to adopt Monroe, but Gladys rejected the offer."

Passive voice.

dialzero (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor Sing 06:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2014

While attending Van Nuys High School, she met a neighbor's son, James Dougherty (more commonly referred to as simply "Jim"), and began a relationship with him.

Please change to "While attending Van Nuys High School, she met a neighbor's son, James "Jim" Dougherty, and began a relationship with him."

Awkward phrasing, make consistent with rest of article (see "Ervin Silliman "Doc" Goddard")


dialzero (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor Sing 06:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2014

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, as she was two years below the California legal age.

Suggest changing to "With few options left, Grace approached Dougherty's mother and suggested that Jim marry Monroe so that she would not have to return to an orphanage or foster care."

Pronoun confusion. The original sounds like Grace suggested Jim marry his own mother. Also, I am not sure what "California legal age" refers to, so I suggest striking it (or clarifying).

dialzero (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor Sing 06:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2014

After Monroe's stardom, 20th Century Fox began claiming that Monroe's only line in the film had been cut out, an anecdote Monroe repeated on Person to Person in 1955, but film historian James Haspiel says her line is intact and she also appears in a shot with herself and another woman paddling a canoe.

Suggest "After Monroe's stardom, 20th Century Fox began claiming that Monroe's only line in the film had been cut out, an anecdote Monroe repeated on Person to Person in 1955, but film historian James Haspiel says her line is intact and she also appears in a shot paddling a canoe with another woman."

Awkward phrasing ("paddling a canoe with herself")

dialzero (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor Sing 06:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marilyn_Monroe/Archive_4&oldid=1246186588"