Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Marilyn Monroe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Emblematic of an era?
"emblematic of the era's attitudes towards sexuality"
This looks like an opinion.
How does one define an era?
How does one define an era's attitude toward sexuality?
What is that attitude? How is it different from other eras? Who defined those eras? Or this one?
How does one know that one person can be emblematic of anything, in this case an era's sexuality?
–Vmavanti (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- MM was "emblematic of the era's attitudes towards sexuality" according to the academics who've written about her, e.g. Richard Dyer, Molly Haskell, Lois Banner (see "Public image" for more information). As for "the era", we're talking about the Fifties, which can be defined as 1950–1959 or —more common when discussing trends— 1946–1963 (end of war to Kennedy's death) or similar. I believe Dyer would perhaps define this era as beginning in 1948 with the publication of the Kinsey report and to end around the publication of The Feminine Mystique in 1963. I do think it's quite clear we're discussing mid-century here, and not for example the entire 20th century. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- "she became one of the most popular sex symbols of the 1950s, emblematic of the era's attitudes towards sexuality" quite clearly defines the era as the Fifties.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Sources layout
Could we fix the sources section.....because the current format does not work properly on mobile devices (this has been talked about before - beyond me why we have not fixed the MOS). I would encourage anyone to look at the sources on a mobile device and note how the authors names gets cut off when using this format...this is very bad for our readers. Lets make our source accessible over a preferred format. -- Moxy (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but it wasn't clear from the edit summary that this was the reason for the change. By all means change it back.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Death tribute procession image
As per this discussion, I am reinstating an image which, if removed, I feel should be removed by another editor than either of us involved there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
We may have a serious WP:OWN problem here, as it looks to me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- By all means, ask for other editors to give their opinions. But I would like to note that stewardship is different to ownership, and looking at your userpage, it seems that you are quick in accusing others of ownership when your edits are reverted. It appears to me that you want this image included because you are interested in Lars Jacob, not because you think it's essential to a Marilyn Monroe article. You've not provided any reason for its inclusion, except that it is on the subject of Marilyn Monroe, which is not a good reason as she's had hundreds of tributes. I'm going to delete the image one last time; please do not add it back before consensus about adding it. Again, I suggest you take a breather and come back since you seemed very frustrated in the other discussion. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Should use this image over the "James Gill's" one as the James Gill image is horrible. But dont sandwich text with both,--Moxy (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- The Gill image isn't included because it is aesthetically appealing, but because it supports what said in that section. It's also a notable example of pop art on Monroe, and is featured in the NYC MoMA.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Thank you Moxy but we don't stand a chance against this obviously dominant "steward" here. People over pop art - always agree on that, whether or not I am unjustly accused of WP:COI. Anyone can see from my history that I contribute to many articles that have no connection whatsoever to that Swedish-American director. Oh well, I'll never try again to contribute to any Monroe article. Didn't realize how foolish this attempt was until I got a look at the one-way tennis serving going on in edit history. We're all being shot into the rafters - bazooooom! - and we're supposed to stay there and be quiet. This is some of Wikipedia's most alienating (and prohibited?) behavior. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- The Gill image isn't included because it is aesthetically appealing, but because it supports what said in that section. It's also a notable example of pop art on Monroe, and is featured in the NYC MoMA.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Comparison to Mickey Mouse?
The first line of her Legacy compares her to Mickey Mouse, another cartoonish image! Whoever wrote that is obviously not an admirer to say the least. It really doesn't matter that the quote was cherry picked from a source, the quote lacks context without explaining more about the comparisons. I suggest any comparison gets trashed or moved way down and replaced with something more Legacy relevant and honestly descriptive. All of this "dumb blonde" (used 8 times) "sex symbol" (used 12 times) verbiage and implication is way overboard, IMHO. Anyone else agree? --Light show (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Read it again. Her popularity is compared to Mickey Mouse -- as well as Elvis. That's pretty good company to be in. Most stars can only dream of being as popular as Mickey Mouse and Elvis, two of the most recognizable and adored figures on the planet. As for "dumb blonde", few MM authorities would dispute that many of her roles were based on that stereotype. We don't leave that out simply because we may not like the stereotype. It's quite compelling that she managed to move past that image in later roles. And you don't think she was a sex symbol??? She was THE female sex symbol of her generation. And by the way, the article isn't supposed to be written as if the writers "admire" her; it is supposed to be written like any biography in any encyclopedia: factual, unbiased, and thorough. Sundayclose (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I listed the number of times the descriptions were used since they are repetitious. I agree the article should seem unbiased. However, the reference used most in the article is Spoto's book, Marilyn Monroe: The Biography, which is 750 pages long. Yet this article repeated the "dumb blonde" label twice as many times as his entire book! The two previous cartoonish sketches of in the Legacy section, of all places, could easily be seen as biased toward promoting that impression. --Light show (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly some of the "dumb blonde" references are too much, but they must be removed judiciously. Remember, the article isn't saying she's a "dumb blonde", just that some of her roles were portrayed that way. Some of the article's references describe how she ended up in those roles and the analysis of some film critics of her having those roles. Please discuss which references to "dumb blonde" you wish to remove or change and why before doing so. Removing some of those uses of the phrase would weaken the article. Sundayclose (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- As mentioned, your only edits to this article have been to revert other editors. You've added zilch in actual commentary or citations. So what's with the sudden urge to drive by and edit war and demand consensus for simple common knowledge additions? None of the basic text I added is in dispute. --Light show (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sundayclose is correct in his/her interpretation of the quote, it indeed means that Monroe's screen persona made such an impact in U.S. popular culture that she is one of the key figures everyone, even people with zero interest or knowledge in films, knows. This article has gone through a peer review, a GA review and a very thorough FA review, without any of the reviewers finding that line weird. As for the use of term "dumb blonde", it would be difficult to write an article about Monroe without mentioning that, and it's pretty clear from the context that nowhere in the article is Monroe called a dumb blonde, what's stated is that she played a dumb blonde in her films and that she was so good in that role that the public unfortunately thought that she really was a dumb blonde. Monroe spent the rest of her career after her big break in 1953 trying to diversify her image and to be taken seriously. By the way, I've recently asked two experienced editors if they'd like to review the article with gender bias specifically in mind, and have recently made some tweaks in the article which try to make it even more crystal clear that the dumb blonde was an act.
- As mentioned, your only edits to this article have been to revert other editors. You've added zilch in actual commentary or citations. So what's with the sudden urge to drive by and edit war and demand consensus for simple common knowledge additions? None of the basic text I added is in dispute. --Light show (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly some of the "dumb blonde" references are too much, but they must be removed judiciously. Remember, the article isn't saying she's a "dumb blonde", just that some of her roles were portrayed that way. Some of the article's references describe how she ended up in those roles and the analysis of some film critics of her having those roles. Please discuss which references to "dumb blonde" you wish to remove or change and why before doing so. Removing some of those uses of the phrase would weaken the article. Sundayclose (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I listed the number of times the descriptions were used since they are repetitious. I agree the article should seem unbiased. However, the reference used most in the article is Spoto's book, Marilyn Monroe: The Biography, which is 750 pages long. Yet this article repeated the "dumb blonde" label twice as many times as his entire book! The two previous cartoonish sketches of in the Legacy section, of all places, could easily be seen as biased toward promoting that impression. --Light show (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I feel like it needs to be stated that Light show has never written a GA or a FA, is currently under an image upload ban (which I believe he may just have violated) and has a ban from all articles about Stanley Kubrick and his films for similar behaviour. I have interacted with this user for several years, and all of our interactions follow the same pattern: I spend several months researching and writing an article, LS flies by, starts nitpicking on a sentence and accusing me of trying to slander the subject, and tries to edit in some of his personal opinions with no regard for encyclopedic language or sourcing (see below for example). When he loses a dispute, he disappears for a while, only to pop up again after some months, with a similar claim that a sentence is slander (note: usually this sentence already was in the article the previous time he was active on the article, so it appears that he is looking for things to complain about). Last November, he tried to stop me from editing Elizabeth Taylor by submitting it for GA review though it was pretty clearly a very underdeveloped article, and contained personal opinions and text copied in verbatim from biographies. It's gotten to the point where I think twice about editing Old Hollywood articles since I know that Light show will appear, trying to hamper the process. I hope this puts some Light show's accusations in context. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Unfortunately, that last paragraph is entirely against talk page guidelines about using them to attack or personalize discussions about article content. BTW, that methodology of getting a bio passed a FAC and then using that status to block improvements by others is old hat, sometimes used by tag teams, another violation. But that has never bothered the FAC either. That the Death section, which reads like a ridiculous trivia-blitzed police/coroner's report, passed, says it all. And quickly tagging the best image of this American film star for deletion is also in the playbook. --Light show (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Light show: It is not against talk page guidelines to point out a history of disruptive edits. It is germane to maintaining the quality of an article that is in jeopardy when an editor has a history of problem edits that weaken articles. But if you think a policy or guideline has been broken, by all means report it at WP:ANI and we'll see whether others agree or whether a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Sundayclose (talk)
- Per guidelines, "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." But take guideline violations to the ANI? Been there, done that. --Light show (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're confused as to what constitutes a personal attack. Like Sundayclose stated, it is not unreasonable to mention that an editor's behaviour might be in general unconstructive and that their reasons for arguing for a change to be made may not be entirely about wanting to improve the article. In fact, I'd say that it provides context for the discussion. As for the image, I asked you to be careful in clarifying the image's status and to ask for the opinion of someone who is more experienced in copyright issues. It's no one else's fault but yours if you don't heed others' advice and then your image ends up tagged for deletion. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- It was discussed with the main copyright admin at Commons before uploading. Seemed good enough for me.--Light show (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're confused as to what constitutes a personal attack. Like Sundayclose stated, it is not unreasonable to mention that an editor's behaviour might be in general unconstructive and that their reasons for arguing for a change to be made may not be entirely about wanting to improve the article. In fact, I'd say that it provides context for the discussion. As for the image, I asked you to be careful in clarifying the image's status and to ask for the opinion of someone who is more experienced in copyright issues. It's no one else's fault but yours if you don't heed others' advice and then your image ends up tagged for deletion. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Per guidelines, "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." But take guideline violations to the ANI? Been there, done that. --Light show (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Light show: It is not against talk page guidelines to point out a history of disruptive edits. It is germane to maintaining the quality of an article that is in jeopardy when an editor has a history of problem edits that weaken articles. But if you think a policy or guideline has been broken, by all means report it at WP:ANI and we'll see whether others agree or whether a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Sundayclose (talk)
- Unfortunately, that last paragraph is entirely against talk page guidelines about using them to attack or personalize discussions about article content. BTW, that methodology of getting a bio passed a FAC and then using that status to block improvements by others is old hat, sometimes used by tag teams, another violation. But that has never bothered the FAC either. That the Death section, which reads like a ridiculous trivia-blitzed police/coroner's report, passed, says it all. And quickly tagging the best image of this American film star for deletion is also in the playbook. --Light show (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I feel like it needs to be stated that Light show has never written a GA or a FA, is currently under an image upload ban (which I believe he may just have violated) and has a ban from all articles about Stanley Kubrick and his films for similar behaviour. I have interacted with this user for several years, and all of our interactions follow the same pattern: I spend several months researching and writing an article, LS flies by, starts nitpicking on a sentence and accusing me of trying to slander the subject, and tries to edit in some of his personal opinions with no regard for encyclopedic language or sourcing (see below for example). When he loses a dispute, he disappears for a while, only to pop up again after some months, with a similar claim that a sentence is slander (note: usually this sentence already was in the article the previous time he was active on the article, so it appears that he is looking for things to complain about). Last November, he tried to stop me from editing Elizabeth Taylor by submitting it for GA review though it was pretty clearly a very underdeveloped article, and contained personal opinions and text copied in verbatim from biographies. It's gotten to the point where I think twice about editing Old Hollywood articles since I know that Light show will appear, trying to hamper the process. I hope this puts some Light show's accusations in context. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
User Light show's edit warring
Light show (talk · contribs) has begun edit warring on the "Mickey Mouse" issue discussed above by repeatedly removing that reference. This is despite the fact that he/she has been requested to get consensus here and he/she has no support for his edits. My prior edits about other aspects of this article are entirely irrelevant to this issue. And there is never a reason to edit war if your edits have been challenged. It is your opinion that it is "simple common knoweldge" that MM's popularity should not be compared to Mickey Mouse or Elvis. I happen to have a different opinion. And no opinion on Wikipedia is superior to another opinion. Light show, please stop edit warring and wait for consensus. You are in clear violation of WP:BRD. I would like the opinions of TrueHeartSusie3 and other recent contributers on this issue. Sundayclose (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I did not say it shouldn't be compared. It was by the source. Read what I said.--Light show (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's still your opinion that it was cherry picked. And that is still no reason to edit war. You apparently don't understand WP:BRD, WP:V, and WP:CON. So we'll see what other's might think about it. And of course the warning about edit warring is in your talk page history; you've been around long enough to know that removing it from your talk page doesn't make it go away. Sundayclose (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Some other experienced editors seem to think it does. Should I let them know? --Light show (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's still your opinion that it was cherry picked. And that is still no reason to edit war. You apparently don't understand WP:BRD, WP:V, and WP:CON. So we'll see what other's might think about it. And of course the warning about edit warring is in your talk page history; you've been around long enough to know that removing it from your talk page doesn't make it go away. Sundayclose (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Content added in recent edit
"As an actress, she represented the beauty and glamour of Hollywood stardom, which in her case was expressed with a breathy voice, exaggerated sexuality and vulnerable innocence. Her sudden death at the age of 36 cemented her status as a Hollywood icon."
To me the sentence above is somewhat jarring within the article text and is making a conclusion in a writer's voice rather than in the dispassionate voice of an encyclopedia article. Would welcome other thoughts on the matter. Shearonink (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is an example of what Light show considers good encyclopedia writing. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Your reversion with the rationale, "Your changes are the ones that need to be discussed before added to the article," goes against any known guidelines. In any case, the rationale for the edits had been discussed, so join in.
- There is nothing preventing anyone from rephrasing anyone's edits without your pre-approval, as noted at the top of the page: "If you can update or improve it, please do so." Which is more collaborative than expressing a condescending attitude to those trying to do so. It's more productive to simply fix, discuss or improve phrasing than simply attacking a GF editor's work. As I said, an FA is not a moat. --Light show (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- As I said above, the article has gone through multiple reviews by experienced editors, with none of them finding it an issue, i.e. there has been strong consensus that the quote should be in the article. If you want to delete content and replace it with your own when the article is an FA, the burden of proof is on you to show that your edits would be an improvement. You need to find consensus before making this change. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Nowhere have I said that a FA cannot be improved further – what I'm saying is that consensus needs to be reached on changes when they appear to be somewhat controversial. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I think the version as found in this recent edit is more encyclopedic in tone. Do we need an WP:RFC for this issue? Shearonink (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm confused. Are you referring to LS's edit or the original version, with the Mickey Mouse & Elvis quote? Given that it's only LS who's so far found it weirdly offensive, I don't think a RFC is in order. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Click on the date/time-stamped edit-link I posted above (named "this recent edit"^^^) - I am referring to the version that starts with "According to The Guide to United States Popular Culture,..." I didn't want to refer to one or the other version by name only because the changes have been happening so quickly. And the reason I mentioned RfC is in case anyone in this discussion is feeling particularly intransigent about the "Guide to Popular Culture" content, sometimes it helps to get other editors' opinions. Shearonink (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the clarification :) I'm open for a RfC, but I'd say it should be sufficient that none of the editors who peer reviewed the article while it was written and during the GA and FA processes found it problematic. For some incomprehensible reason LS believes Monroe is being compared to Mickey Mouse or Elvis in other terms than popularity. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Well, consensus can change. I personally like the present "Guide" version but other editors might differ in their opinions, just wanted to mention RfC or even some of the other content-dispute avenues if that becomes necessary. Shearonink (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Anyone is entitled to start an RfC, but I don't see the need for it. An RfC is needed when it's unclear which edits are favored in the discussion. I see one editor wanting to make a change and everyone else wanting the existing version which has been in the article for some time, or have I missed something? Sundayclose (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- @THS. It shouldn't still be incomprehensible, since the same issues have come up in previous discussions. And yes, whenever I see an editor apparently degrading a bio on my watchlist, I tend to comment.--Light show (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- So you think that stating that Monroe is on the same level of fame as Mickey Mouse and Elvis (i.e. an important cultural icon who defined the 20th century) is saying that she's a cartoon character or a rock'n'roll singer who became a sad parody of himself? Anyhow, I'm going to sign off for tonight. But I think many of us are interested in knowing how exactly the quote is degrading? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- If you don't like articles on your watchlist being degraded, Light show, then there's a simple answer: don't edit them. CassiantoTalk 22:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Reread the Mickey Mouse comparison section. The quote was cherry-picked from a source used only once in the article. In fact, that source's full Monroe article is over 1,100 words, although a comparison of an American dumb blonde sex symbol with Mickey Mouse must have been too good to resist. Worthy of a lead sentence in fact. And it certainly supported the pop-art cartoons you somehow dug up to add to her Legacy. Still incomprehensible?--Light show (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, so we shouldn't say that Monroe's fame surpasses pretty much every other movie star's and has made her an important part of American popular culture, which also included such well-known figures as for example Elvis and Mickey Mouse? Because that's degrading? I think you need to spend some more time re-reading that sentence, because you are misreading it, or interpreting it in a very unique way. I used the source (Chapman, Gary (2001). "Marilyn Monroe". In Browne, Ray B.; Browne, Pat. The Guide to United States Popular Culture. University of Wisconsin Press) because it seemed like the most authoritative source on popular culture I could find, and for the Legacy section I needed information on Monroe's position in American pop culture. I think I'm done trying to explain the quote, as you're simply misreading it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- So you think that stating that Monroe is on the same level of fame as Mickey Mouse and Elvis (i.e. an important cultural icon who defined the 20th century) is saying that she's a cartoon character or a rock'n'roll singer who became a sad parody of himself? Anyhow, I'm going to sign off for tonight. But I think many of us are interested in knowing how exactly the quote is degrading? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Well, consensus can change. I personally like the present "Guide" version but other editors might differ in their opinions, just wanted to mention RfC or even some of the other content-dispute avenues if that becomes necessary. Shearonink (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the clarification :) I'm open for a RfC, but I'd say it should be sufficient that none of the editors who peer reviewed the article while it was written and during the GA and FA processes found it problematic. For some incomprehensible reason LS believes Monroe is being compared to Mickey Mouse or Elvis in other terms than popularity. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Click on the date/time-stamped edit-link I posted above (named "this recent edit"^^^) - I am referring to the version that starts with "According to The Guide to United States Popular Culture,..." I didn't want to refer to one or the other version by name only because the changes have been happening so quickly. And the reason I mentioned RfC is in case anyone in this discussion is feeling particularly intransigent about the "Guide to Popular Culture" content, sometimes it helps to get other editors' opinions. Shearonink (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm confused. Are you referring to LS's edit or the original version, with the Mickey Mouse & Elvis quote? Given that it's only LS who's so far found it weirdly offensive, I don't think a RFC is in order. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
It's time for this discussion to be closed, and I would like for an uninvolved editor to do so. Sundayclose (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2016 (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.
Another Monroe publicity portrait
I came across another good image here, which is an obvious publicity photo for her only, with no film mentioned. Since it shows the margins with the publisher studio's name w/o a copyright notice, it would apparently be PD. I ran a copyright image search for any renewals and nothing came up, for any image renewals of any year. One site says it's from 1953. With some support, I can upload it or someone else can. --Light show (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- It is indeed a good image, but I'm not seeing any information about who made or published it? The image just says that she's a 20th Century Fox player? So I think additional evidence that this image is PD is probably needed. Personally, I'd prefer for the image that's currently the main infobox image to be kept, as I think it both presents her as a sex symbol (she has her 1953 hairdo and is wearing a tight sweater), yet is covered up and has an expression that is much more serious and 'mature' (as opposed to naïve) than in her "dumb blonde role" publicity images, so it also represents the fact the Monroe was an actor (i.e. the 'dumb blonde' was an act) whose ambitions went far beyond cheesecake and musical comedies. Remember when you suggested we use an image like the Eisenstadt one as infobox photo? Well, I think this is image comes pretty close to those. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- It's described as a "1953 Photo by Frank Powolny" at IMDB. Did a search of anything by him and came up with no photos. Whether he was a studio photographer or not is secondary, since there's no renewal shown, or even a notice. But even if it's not best for the infobox, it's clearly the best image IMO of any of the 29 images in the article now. It could replace one of the cartoon images in the Legacy, for instance. --Light show (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- It also seems to be a promo of her for Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, which came out that year by 20th Century and shows her with the same hair style and similar earrings. --Light show (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Powolny was a 20th Century Fox studio photographer, a lot of the famous MM photos are by him. What's on the reverse side of that photo? IMDB is not reliable and I don't think it can be used to back up anything. I suggest you submit the image to someone at Commons who knows more about these things. It could potentially be used in Legacy, but I think the panel from the MM triptych should remain as it a.) illustrates well some of the posthumous narratives of Monroe; b.) is a notable example of pop art on Monroe.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Even if by some miracle there was a notice, front or back, there was still never any legally required renewal. --Light show (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- According to the table, if it does have a copyright notice and the copyright was renewed, the copyright is 95 years. Anyway, no use discussing this with me since I'm no expert on copyright, but I strongly suggest you ask someone to go over the copyright status as all images featured in a FA must be in public domain (unless fair use, of course).TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Regardless of the copyright status, I don't think it's a particularly great portrait of her with its somewhat harsh tones -- I was quite happy with the picture of her with Lennon and Chopin to go in the Legacy section. If we really need another portrait of her then the previous one from the infobox was attractive, better than the black-and-white one IMO. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- According to the table, if it does have a copyright notice and the copyright was renewed, the copyright is 95 years. Anyway, no use discussing this with me since I'm no expert on copyright, but I strongly suggest you ask someone to go over the copyright status as all images featured in a FA must be in public domain (unless fair use, of course).TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Even if by some miracle there was a notice, front or back, there was still never any legally required renewal. --Light show (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Powolny was a 20th Century Fox studio photographer, a lot of the famous MM photos are by him. What's on the reverse side of that photo? IMDB is not reliable and I don't think it can be used to back up anything. I suggest you submit the image to someone at Commons who knows more about these things. It could potentially be used in Legacy, but I think the panel from the MM triptych should remain as it a.) illustrates well some of the posthumous narratives of Monroe; b.) is a notable example of pop art on Monroe.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
The following discussion 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.
FYI
In the summer of 1935, she briefly stayed with Grace and her husband Erwin "Doc" Goddard and two other families, until Grace placed her in the Los Angeles Orphans Home in Hollywood in September 1935. While the orphanage was "a model institution", and was described in positive terms by her peers, Monroe found being placed there traumatizing, as to her "it seemed that no one wanted me".
Encouraged by the orphanage staff, who thought that Monroe would be happier living in a family, Grace became her legal guardian in 1936, although she was not able to take her out of the orphanage until the summer of 1937.
She was actually in the care of my grandmother, Dora Harris an older resident of the orphanage, while there. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is that information in any published sources? Would be interesting to add if verifiable etc. Shearonink (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I doubt that fact has been published anywhere. My grandmother always talked about the orphanage; I think she and her twin brother were there for 10 years, and it was one of the stories she would tell. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's definitely not in any of the biographies used in writing this article. However, it appears that the biographers are a bit puzzled as to why Grace didn't take her out of the orphanage immediately when she was given Monroe's guardianship. Perhaps this could be the reason? @LynnWysong:, could you give more details? Even if we can't use it in the article, it's definitely interesting. I also suggest you contact Lois Banner with this information. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I'll do that. She and my grandmother would have left about the same time-but my grandmother left because she had turned 18 (edit: now I recall she may left before she turned 18 because I think she finished high school while living with an older brother). As far as I know they had no contact after they left, but somehow my grandma had made the connection little Norma Jean and the Marilyn Monroe that emerged ten years later. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Unnecessary details
This article seems riddled with them. I myself have no problem with the text itself and commend the writer but under Wikipedia policy such detail is not necessary and should immediately be removed for being of substance only to people who actually want to learn about the subject. Informant16 July 17, 2016
- This is a Featured Article, which means it has been officially reviewed and meets standards that make it superior to most articles on Wikipedia. As such, it requires discussion of major changes. So please stop edit warring and open up discussion for specific changes, then wait for consensus before making the changes. Pinging TrueHeartSusie3 to join this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wholly concur with Sundayclose. You, Informant16, appear to be nothing more than a wretched vandal and I'd thank you to stop your disruptive behaviour. CassiantoTalk 23:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, If anything I'd say the article is pretty conservative for an article on Marilyn Monroe, a lot more could be said about certain things in fact.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Informant16: And by the way, please link the Wikipedia policy that prohibits the amount of detail in this article. Sundayclose (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- There's nothing wretched about me. I've done nothing but contribute to this site for the last five years just to have other users remove my content. Sorry for producing information which reminds me a lot of the stuff written here that somehow has gotten it to Featured Article status. Considering how my text was treated, which like this was also detailed then maybe the same fate should befall what's written here. The rules I"m referring to are Wikipedia:Too_much_detail and Wikipedia:Out of scope. Informant16 July 17, 2016
- Those are essays, not policies. And if this article is "bloated", how did it pass FA review? If mulitple editors have removed your contributions, maybe you should think about the possibility that the problem is with your edits rather than everyone else. And your argument that your edits were removed so this article should be butchered is utterly absurd. You are welcome to your opinions on this or any article, but you are not entitled to make huge changes with no discussion, especially on an FA. Sundayclose (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- WP:FAC and the promotion from it to FA trumps any half-baked, stupid essay. I'd ask you to stop with your disruption. CassiantoTalk 23:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Right. I'm just this awful editor that somehow manages to get put around the same four to five sensible users that conclude my writing is extensive. You figured it out. Informant16 July 17, 2016
- There's certainly no smoke without fire. CassiantoTalk 23:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- There's certainly no gas without a station. Informant16 July 18, 2016
- There's certainly no smoke without fire. CassiantoTalk 23:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Right. I'm just this awful editor that somehow manages to get put around the same four to five sensible users that conclude my writing is extensive. You figured it out. Informant16 July 17, 2016
- WP:FAC and the promotion from it to FA trumps any half-baked, stupid essay. I'd ask you to stop with your disruption. CassiantoTalk 23:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Those are essays, not policies. And if this article is "bloated", how did it pass FA review? If mulitple editors have removed your contributions, maybe you should think about the possibility that the problem is with your edits rather than everyone else. And your argument that your edits were removed so this article should be butchered is utterly absurd. You are welcome to your opinions on this or any article, but you are not entitled to make huge changes with no discussion, especially on an FA. Sundayclose (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- There's nothing wretched about me. I've done nothing but contribute to this site for the last five years just to have other users remove my content. Sorry for producing information which reminds me a lot of the stuff written here that somehow has gotten it to Featured Article status. Considering how my text was treated, which like this was also detailed then maybe the same fate should befall what's written here. The rules I"m referring to are Wikipedia:Too_much_detail and Wikipedia:Out of scope. Informant16 July 17, 2016
- I wholly concur with Sundayclose. You, Informant16, appear to be nothing more than a wretched vandal and I'd thank you to stop your disruptive behaviour. CassiantoTalk 23:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Typically, I disagree with Informant about much. In this case, not so much. I also think the final paragraph in the article lede is overkill. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's what I'm saying. I don't see how my type of entries could be dismissed as overtly detailed when I'm seeing the same thing here. I don't care if its a featured article. The same rules should apply for the entire site.Informant16 July 17, 2016
- Speaking of overkill, the Death section is overloaded with trivia which could be tightened. I noted that fact a few weeks ago but being a FA I didn't want to do it without support, which never came. --Light show (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Quote spam lately again....more downgrading.--Moxy (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- What do you define as spam? In any case, if someone else wants to paraphrase significant quotes about a delicate topic, feel free. Personally, I think the opinions on that subject need to come directly from those who made them. --Light show (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- And why do you keep calling cited quotes plagiarism? They're neither spam nor plagiarism. Please explain how you define those allegations since WP and other sources do not imply they are either. --Light show (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm in full agreement with Light show. Informant16 July 17, 2016
- That's Light show, a person who's never written or contributed constructively to a featured article in their life. His knowledge on featured articles can be jotted down on the back of a stamp. CassiantoTalk 06:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm in full agreement with Light show. Informant16 July 17, 2016
@Informant16:, before making such drastic changes to the article (which, as stated above, has gone through several reviews with none of the editors finding it too detailed, on the contrary I was told to add detail in some instances), please discuss them here. Which parts do you think are unnecessary and why? You will need to be able to explain why some parts are unnecessary detail, you can't just remove content from a recent FA because your additions to other articles have been reverted.
- Here are a few examples of what I'm referring to.
- "According to Sarah Churchwell, Niagara was one of the most overtly sexual films of Monroe's career, and it included scenes in which her body was covered only by a sheet or a towel, considered shocking by contemporary audiences." - From the "Rising Star" section because it's an opinion.
- "While Variety deemed it "clichéd" and "morbid", The New York Times commented that "the falls and Miss Monroe are something to see", as although Monroe may not be "the perfect actress at this point ... she can be seductive – even when she walks"." - "Rising Star" section again, because these don't have any immediate need to be here nor are they relevant to the degree of being included in the first place.
- "Crowther of The New York Times and William Brogdon of Variety both commented favorably on Monroe, especially noting her performance of "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend"; according to the latter, she demonstrated the "ability to sex a song as well as point up the eye values of a scene by her presence" - From that section again because once again, there is no reason given for why these opinions contribute to her life story.
- You can't just content that doesn't contribute adequately to the article in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia. I've done the same thing in the past and learned my lesson. You're not exempt from that. Informant16 July 18, 2016
- I think you may still have a bit more to learn. There is no blanket ban on opinions, as long as they are relevant and clearly shown to be opinions. Sarah Churchwell is an academic and has written one of the core books on Monroe. Furthermore, I doubt anyone would find her statement controversial, if you watch that film you'll get what I mean. As for the sentences you think are unnecessary detail, I think you're failing to see the difference between details which contribute positively to the article (in this case notable examples of how Monroe's performances were received at the time), and unnecessary details. Analysis and examples do have a place on Wikipedia, otherwise this article would be "In 1953, Monroe starred in three films. Film 1 made this much money. Film 2 made this much money. Film three made this much money. In 1954, Monroe starred in two films...". Can you explain how this article reached FA status with all this 'unnecessary detail' and rule breaking? I have a feeling that you're just doing this because I edited the Jackie Kennedy article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I disagree. The article could have easily detailed that there was a consensus among individuals of her performance in a particular way rather than one reviewer or person giving their view as if it mattered more than others. The article making it to FA status, I'm sure, was before it was seen by Wikipedia policy intellectuals such as Tvoz, SNUGGUMS and Kierzek who have adequately expressed why these types of additions are unnecessary details which according to the policies of Wikipedia have no place on the site. We have to follow the rules. It's absurd to imply that my concern for the wellness of this article would be rooted in you editing another article, one which I have no interest in to where it would bother me that you did edit. Why make the claim when it has no merit? Informant16 July 18, 2016
- I think you may still have a bit more to learn. There is no blanket ban on opinions, as long as they are relevant and clearly shown to be opinions. Sarah Churchwell is an academic and has written one of the core books on Monroe. Furthermore, I doubt anyone would find her statement controversial, if you watch that film you'll get what I mean. As for the sentences you think are unnecessary detail, I think you're failing to see the difference between details which contribute positively to the article (in this case notable examples of how Monroe's performances were received at the time), and unnecessary details. Analysis and examples do have a place on Wikipedia, otherwise this article would be "In 1953, Monroe starred in three films. Film 1 made this much money. Film 2 made this much money. Film three made this much money. In 1954, Monroe starred in two films...". Can you explain how this article reached FA status with all this 'unnecessary detail' and rule breaking? I have a feeling that you're just doing this because I edited the Jackie Kennedy article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
As for @Light show: — I fail to see how the Death section is too detailed, given that I've tried to move most of the details to the article on her death. I think it would be fine to add a few lines on how some of her friends refused to accept the verdict that it was a suicide to that article, albeit I'd also add Leaming's observation that such denial is very common when someone suddenly kills themselves. As for the "accidental overdose" theory — the inquest in her death specifically concluded that there was no way she could have taken the pills in such high doses in such a short time accidentally, no matter how addicted she was at that point. To make it seem as if the authorities aren't sure that it was a suicide would be to add speculation and fringe theories to the article. Also, please learn how to cite properly and don't use the highly unreliable tabloid bio that is Keith Badman's work.
- You actually think a pop biographer's personal opinion about suicide should be added, as opposed to four people who knew her extremely well? Or that Badman's book, with its direct quotations, is less reliable than this? The questions answer themselves, so no reply is needed.--Light show (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you're referring to Leaming, if I recall correctly it's not her personal opinion but the scientific consensus; she actually interviewed psychiatrists for the book. According to the official inquest, Monroe killed herself. The review of that inquest verified that conclusion. Claiming that there's an official dispute on Monroe's cause of death is wrong. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- The phrasing in the last paragraph of the Death section says that an "accidental overdose" is one of "several conspiracy theories." Shouldn't that be rephrased? --Light show (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why? The official inquest was pretty clear in their verdict of suicide, and specifically denied that an accidental overdose was a possibility. Hence those who still claim that it was an accident are usually either unfamiliar with the inquest, shocked friends in mourning, or are claiming that there was some kind of a cover-up (i.e. conspiracy). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- The phrasing in the last paragraph of the Death section says that an "accidental overdose" is one of "several conspiracy theories." Shouldn't that be rephrased? --Light show (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you're referring to Leaming, if I recall correctly it's not her personal opinion but the scientific consensus; she actually interviewed psychiatrists for the book. According to the official inquest, Monroe killed herself. The review of that inquest verified that conclusion. Claiming that there's an official dispute on Monroe's cause of death is wrong. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Finally, @Winkelvi:, please also explain why you think some of the details need to be cut. As for the last para on the lede, it's not at all unnecessary. Monroe's marriages formed an important part of her public image and if we did not mention them, the lede wouldn't accurately reflect the content of the article. It would be akin to not mentioning Brad Pitt in the lede for Angelina Jolie's bio or Douglas Fairbanks in Mary Pickford's. Ditto the mention of her mental health problems and her supposedly mysterious death; these are core details of Monroe's life.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Overkill in the manner that it reads like a novel, not an encyclopedia. The wording could be more concise and factual than flowery and romantic. But, I'm not going to push it. I really don't like the tone of this discussion at all and have decided to bow out. The hostility is off-putting to say the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have to say that I'm struggling to see what you mean, especially since one of the FA reviewers specifically commented that the writing was in his opinion too "official". However, I think it is a good idea to avoid drama. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I believe that TrueHeartSusie3 has gone to great lengths to improve this article. As noted above, "the article is pretty conservative for an article on Marilyn Monroe". The fact is, it passed FA review which should carry great weight. I don't understand or see the need for wholesale changes in the text since the version which passed. I had actually taken this off my watch list after it passed and came back around after my name was mentioned out-of-context, above. It is true that adding walls of text or an excessive amount of intricate detail does not lead to a better article. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." But that is not what we have here. There is a balance given as to what is noteworthy and what is not; now with that said, most every article can use some edits for concision in places, but again, I don't see where wide changes as to language is required herein. Kierzek (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have to say that I'm struggling to see what you mean, especially since one of the FA reviewers specifically commented that the writing was in his opinion too "official". However, I think it is a good idea to avoid drama. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Subsection change from "Critical acclaim and marriage to Arthur Miller" to "Conversion to Judaism, marriage to Arthur Miller, critical acclaim"
If you read two sentences after where you continue inserting your information you will see it is there. Maybe you need to get used to listening to others and not just yourself. We hope (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. You are right, and that's why we should extend the subsection as you suggested instead.EditsOrArticles (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Her marriage to Miller and the critical acclaim are noteworthy enough to be in the section header. Her conversion to Judaism, while notable enough to be mentioned in the article, is a very minor aspect of her life and should not be in the header. Sundayclose (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Conversion to an entirely different religion would always be a major part of anyone's biography. Especially when it's a long hard process like Monroe had. EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, conversion is not always a major part of someone's bio. In her case, compared to most events in her life, it was not. That's why there's only one sentence devoted to it in the article, as it should be. In any event, EditOrArticles, your edits were challenged by two editors. You should have immediately brought the issue to this talk page; but you decided to edit war. A smart editor in your situation would self-revert until a consensus is reached here to avoid a 3RR block. Sundayclose (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Monroe was banned from an entire country (Egypt) solely for her religious conversion. Would you admit that? EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- It may be worth comparing the issue with Elizabeth Taylor's article, which was also largely edited by THS. There's nothing unreasonable about adding the proposed, or even expanded details, to the article. See also more details.--Light show (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed - We should change it. As a semi-convert myself, I know how significant is having my peers aware of my new ideology. 79.181.160.150 (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- It may be worth comparing the issue with Elizabeth Taylor's article, which was also largely edited by THS. There's nothing unreasonable about adding the proposed, or even expanded details, to the article. See also more details.--Light show (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Monroe was banned from an entire country (Egypt) solely for her religious conversion. Would you admit that? EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, conversion is not always a major part of someone's bio. In her case, compared to most events in her life, it was not. That's why there's only one sentence devoted to it in the article, as it should be. In any event, EditOrArticles, your edits were challenged by two editors. You should have immediately brought the issue to this talk page; but you decided to edit war. A smart editor in your situation would self-revert until a consensus is reached here to avoid a 3RR block. Sundayclose (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Conversion to an entirely different religion would always be a major part of anyone's biography. Especially when it's a long hard process like Monroe had. EditsOrArticles (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Her marriage to Miller and the critical acclaim are noteworthy enough to be in the section header. Her conversion to Judaism, while notable enough to be mentioned in the article, is a very minor aspect of her life and should not be in the header. Sundayclose (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It most definitely should not be in the header. Monroe converted because she wanted to be part of Miller's family. She wasn't religious, in fact she defined herself as a "Jewish atheist", and following their divorce, while she didn't officially leave Judaism, she did not practice it. As for Egypt's ban on her, Egypt was banning all Jewish celebrities at the time, and it in no way inconvenienced her life. The details you've added (rabbi's name, conversion month) are already in the article. We cannot start overemphasizing her conversion just because you guys find Judaism to be a major part of your lives. In Monroe's life, it did not play a major role, that's what our sources say.
As for the inclusion of Monroe's religious adherence to the infobox, I think that would give the impression that she was both a devout Christian (prior to 1956) and then a devout Jew, which is false. Monroe had religious foster parents (the Bolenders and Ana Atchinson Lower), who raised her according to their religious principles. Yes, Monroe as a teen and very young adult did show some interest in Lower's religion, Christian Science, but that did not last long. So it would be wrong to call her a Christian.
As for your comment on Taylor, Light show, let me remind you that there's still a section on her conversion as indeed for Taylor the conversion was major and she was a devout Jew and a committed Zionist for the rest of her life. What I opposed were details which had no sources and your adding of material in verbatim from biographies (i.e. plagiarism). As for the link you've posted, first of all I'm not entirely sure it's a RS. However, even more importantly, it doesn't present any new information. Yes, Monroe sincerely wanted to convert to Judaism and learn about it when she married Miller, as the article states – to be part of his family, to take part in the traditions even secular Jews might practice, Hanukkah etc.. Yes, she retained the menorah, but indeed if you read the biographies, you will find that it was the only sign of her conversion that she retained. Note also that Monroe's funeral wasn't Jewish. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- For a person's religion to be noted in an infobox, it's never been required that a person be "devout," or have deep religious feelings. It's only been necessary that they self-identify as belonging to a particular religion. In any case, her chosen religion was obviously a more significant part of her life than the name of the cemetery. --Light show (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Light show. Religion determines holidays/food/marriage and even which cemetery, and is a bigger part in anyone's life that that single day where he died. It's funny how her death has 3 paragraphs more than any of her own major life decisions, like her relation with her family, her daily routine and on top of that- her chosen faith. 79.181.160.150 (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes exactly – Monroe never self-identified as a Christian. Furthermore, she identified as a Jewish atheist, meaning that she identified with Jewish culture, not religion. There's one thing I agree about with you, LS: the name of the cemetery she's interred in could be taken off the infobox. As for including information about Monroe's daily routine – that's trivia. There is plenty about her family in the section about her childhood – she wasn't really in contact with them during her adulthood, as only two people she was related to biologically (her institutionalized mother and her half-sister) were alive. Her guardian, Grace Goddard, died early in her career, as did Ana Lower. Monroe's death was sudden and caused a huge media circus, followed by decades of conspiracy theories. That's why that section is as long as it is.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I have to agree with Light show. Religion determines holidays/food/marriage and even which cemetery, and is a bigger part in anyone's life that that single day where he died. It's funny how her death has 3 paragraphs more than any of her own major life decisions, like her relation with her family, her daily routine and on top of that- her chosen faith. 79.181.160.150 (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
TrueHeartSusie3 please reach consensus before you change anything again. Wikipedia-Translator (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia-Translator, you mean changing the infobox back to the form it was in when the article was made a FA? It's the person(s) who added religion to the infobox who needs to get consensus on the Talk page first. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Whether she called herself a "Jewish atheist" at one point nonetheless means she identified as being Jewish. But the excessively brief 7-word mention of her conversion, Monroe converted to Judaism with the marriage..., even with the attached notes by Meyers, seems to focus on her not actively practicing it than to the emotional needs it filled when she converted. Meyers explained some of those needs in more detail before you began editing the article in early 2015 and minimizing her newly chosen religion:
"Monroe had just turned 30 when they married, and never having a real family of her own, she was eager to join the family of her new husband. Monroe chose to convert to Judaism to 'express her loyalty and get close to both Miller and his parents,' writes biographer Jeffrey Meyers. Monroe explained to her close friend, Susan Strasberg: 'I can identify with the Jews. Everybody's always out to get them, no matter what they do, like me.'"
- The importance of her not having a Jewish funeral is debatable: The funeral was arranged by her former husband, Joe DiMaggio, who invited her foster parents and few others, and he chose to have a Lutheran minister preside.
- On a few other points so the discussion doesn't veer off anymore, try to refrain from assuming you know other editor's religion, and thereby imply an agenda, by sticking to talk page guidelines: Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.
- And as for you wanting to repeat your old assertion of plagiarism on Taylor's article, I should note that you had admitted you were wrong about that: You're correct in that the sentences related to Judaism weren't plagiarism, although they do use some of the same words – my bad, I'm sorry!. --Light show (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You should take your own advice. To not let you waste any more of my time, I'm just going to say that you still have not presented a single credible argument that Judaism's role in Monroe's life should be emphasized in the article. It's clearly stated that she identified with Jews as a persecuted people, and that for her, conversion was about becoming part of Miller's family. It wasn't to her about religion, hence she defined herself an atheist.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- The issue is not whether it should be emphasized, but whether it should be de-emphasized to a bare minimum. Do you consider that part of her life trivial? If you want to read real trivia, simply check the 100-word minutiae in just the first paragraph of the Death section, no doubt added by a fan of Arthur Conan Doyle. --Light show (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Again, it's your job to show that it is de-emphasized. You've not been able to do so, beyond insisting that the religious conversion must be a key fact of her life and that it must have held special significance for her. Neither of these claims are backed up by reliable sources. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- It's no one's job to prove whether it was a key fact of her life. It's much simpler to point out that ten times (10X) as many words were used to describe useless after-death minutiae, such as:
It was estimated that Monroe had died between 8:30 and 10:30 p.m., and the toxicological analysis concluded that the cause of death was acute barbiturate poisoning, as she had 8 mg% of chloral hydrate and 4.5 mg% of pentobarbital (Nembutal) in her blood, and a further 13 mg% of pentobarbital in her liver. Empty bottles containing these medicines were found next to her bed.
- You thereby give bedside drug trivia more emphasis over her choice of religion. That's ridiculous IMO. Or devoting 1,000 words to details about her teen years and offering just 7 to her willful conversion as an adult seems a bit off balance. Same with other details: Monroe's hairline was raised by electrolysis and her hair was bleached even lighter, to platinum blond, which are given twice the number of words. In fact, of the 17,000 words in the article, the 7 about her conversion are among the few which describe events that she, in her personal life, had full control over. And you now require other editors to prove to your satisfaction that it was indeed a "key fact" of her life? Hello? --Light show (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Drug trivia"? She famously died of a drug overdose, so please don't be moronic. Her religion is irrelevant; all religion is bullshite in my opinion and is one of the most uninteresting things to know about someone. Why do you rank this to be more important than her death? how she died? or her trademark hair? Monroe was perhaps one of the - if not thee - most famous blondes in Hollywood history; again, like the overdose, very relevant to this article. I suggest you bugger off to somewhere else, Light show. Clearly, you and featured articles do not get on with one another. CassiantoTalk 22:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Again, it's your job to show that it is de-emphasized. You've not been able to do so, beyond insisting that the religious conversion must be a key fact of her life and that it must have held special significance for her. Neither of these claims are backed up by reliable sources. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- The issue is not whether it should be emphasized, but whether it should be de-emphasized to a bare minimum. Do you consider that part of her life trivial? If you want to read real trivia, simply check the 100-word minutiae in just the first paragraph of the Death section, no doubt added by a fan of Arthur Conan Doyle. --Light show (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You should take your own advice. To not let you waste any more of my time, I'm just going to say that you still have not presented a single credible argument that Judaism's role in Monroe's life should be emphasized in the article. It's clearly stated that she identified with Jews as a persecuted people, and that for her, conversion was about becoming part of Miller's family. It wasn't to her about religion, hence she defined herself an atheist.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I have to agree with the reasoning above by Cassianto and TrueheartSusie3. The pop culture and history that Monroe is most well known is for being a "sex symbol" and how her trademark look was acquired is relevant, not only in mention but it deserves detail. Further, over the years her live, loves and death have gained much attention and some "controversy". If nothing else, these events have kept certain authors in a paying job and made money for publishers'. A quick Google books search proves these points. Therefore, details as to her death are relevant and should be stated in detail. This to help the general reader as to the known objective facts found and also be aware of other opinions without going too far afield into WP:fringe and WP:undue, which again is good for selling books but has no place here. Kierzek (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with this summary. The balance of info on drugs and her image are of good (both are of key importance). The religious aspect is of lesser importance, and I'm not sure that bloating out the section title or IB is necessary. – SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed the balance is correct. This recent RfC should also be noted as the clear consensus is that the "religion=" parameter should be removed from the info box person, which is used in this article, and her religion is definitely not something Monroe was specifically known for. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:33, 22 July 2016 (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.
Marilyn Monroe and Carl Sandburg
- Marilyn Monroe and Carl Sandburg -Roger Ebert
- Chicago, by Carl Sandburg - YouTube
- Marilyn Monroe & Carl Sandburg - The Visit 1961 - YouTube
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Radio interview, 1955, The Rose Tattoo premiere, on Youtube. Marilyn Monroe, Marlon Brando, and Sid Caesar discuss method acting, with Marilyn beginning ten minutes in, we learn about her work at the Actor’s Studio.
- Marilyn Monroe Marlon Brando Actors Studio Benefit 1955 Milton Greene -pinterest -youtube - Google Search
- Xb2u7Zjzc32, I'm not sure what you're trying to say? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
"Iconic blonde"
Hi SNUGGUMS, my apologies for reverting you without explanation, my fingers were moving a bit too fast there... :-P Anyway, I don't think "iconic" is really puffery here given the stature of these two actresses in popular culture, and without some sort of adjective prior to "blonde" the sentence doesn't carry much force. So long as the source uses a term that can be paraphrased as "iconic", I'd be inclined to keep it (I don't have the source but am AGF). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I figured it was by mistake :P, though I've been previously advised against using that term within articles to maintain an appropriate tone. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree it's a word to watch but it seemed reasonable here; let's see if others have an opinion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Iconic" is at least neutral, as opposed to the thirteen mentions of her being a "dumb blonde", with two in the lead. --Light show (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- What I meant with "iconic blonde" was that Jean Harlow was another film star who was specifically associated with 'blondeness' (i.e. she was known as "the blonde bombshell"). There are plenty of blonde film stars who are iconic yet they're not associated with their hair colour. Hence I don't think just writing "another blonde" works, because it doesn't explain why Monroe was compared with just this blonde actress from the 1930s. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- SNUGGUMS, in this particular case the word is appropriate to include. It is used in RS sources and a key identifying aspect of the person herein. "Another blonde" is too vague. Kierzek (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Although I agree that we should use the phrase "iconic blonde" sparingly, if there was ever an actress for whom the term applies, it's Monroe. And, as others have said, "another blonde" is a rather limp description. Sundayclose (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I added the word back in, if there is a problem please discuss it here before reverting. Kierzek (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Although I agree that we should use the phrase "iconic blonde" sparingly, if there was ever an actress for whom the term applies, it's Monroe. And, as others have said, "another blonde" is a rather limp description. Sundayclose (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- SNUGGUMS, in this particular case the word is appropriate to include. It is used in RS sources and a key identifying aspect of the person herein. "Another blonde" is too vague. Kierzek (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree it's a word to watch but it seemed reasonable here; let's see if others have an opinion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
From downers to uppers
The paragraphs describing her final career role, The Misfits, is 99.77% negative and .33% positive, with the single BFI mention that the film was a "classic." That's the only indirect positive mention about anything to do with her in the film. I'll add a few cites which should help lift this mostly downer bio. Hopefully, reverters will comment before taking cover behind its FA status. --Light show (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
BTW, since the uppers may still be buried beneath the negative rubble, I'm wondering if it's OK to highlight the few positive mentions by using a blinking red, white and blue animated gif of the added text. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Before adding any quotes to the text and asking others not to revert, perhaps you could bring them first here for discussion? The facts are that the filming was a bit of a disaster, with not just Monroe but all the other stars and Huston being ill and generally troubled, and that it was a flop at the time of its release. It's still not regarded as a masterpiece, but as a film that's pretty mediocre but haunting due to all the drama that was going on in its stars' lives. So to add a 'positive spin' to either the filming process or the film's contemporary / posthumous reception would be against Wikipedia's guidelines. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I believe it goes against all guidelines to request permission from any editor. Nor would I agree that trying to add cites which you personally may not like, would automatically amount to putting a "positive spin" on the article. "Disaster... troubled...flop...mediocre...haunting," descriptions from the sources you added, imply the "spin," or downward spiral, which unbalances the bio. --Light show (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Light show, do you need to be reminded that you've already got at least two topic bans? I suggest that you start at least trying to cooperate, discuss and compromise instead of knowingly creating edit wars. Please explain why you feel the paragraph on the production of The Misfits should be split into two and a contemporary (not very well-known) scholar's opinion be added to the middle. Why cannot Tracy's opinion be placed in the same sentence with the other posthumous opinion, where it logically belongs? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I believe it goes against all guidelines to request permission from any editor. Nor would I agree that trying to add cites which you personally may not like, would automatically amount to putting a "positive spin" on the article. "Disaster... troubled...flop...mediocre...haunting," descriptions from the sources you added, imply the "spin," or downward spiral, which unbalances the bio. --Light show (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Simply because your statement is incorrect. Claiming that opinions—at least any positive ones—about her role belong somewhere else, is ridiculous. And since the sources in that section about that and other films are all posthumous, they are also opinions which should get deleted, according to your rationale:
- ...she accepted the part solely because ...Crowther described Monroe as lacking the old Monroe dynamism ...Hedda Hopper called the film "the most vulgar picture she's ever done"... producers feared that Monroe would complicate the production... filming was again difficult... Monroe disliked it ... thought it inferior ... she also struggled... Crowther calling Monroe "completely blank and unfathomable. And all of that in just a few paragraphs. All opinion, all posthumous, all negative. --Light show (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe instead of edit warring, it would be simpler if you just moved the text to where you're claiming it should logically go, like you did. Just to add that I kept getting red alerts that you were reverting text, and didn't see that you had actually moved it, which is fine.--Light show (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- All of the bits you've listed are the opinions of either Monroe or her contemporaries or just neutral descriptions, they certainly aren't posthumous or biographers' opinions. Tony Tracy's opinion is from a book published in 2010, and presumably written around the same time. I moved the Tracy quote next to the Geoff Andrew quote, and then you reverted me twice. You're not explaining your rationale for splitting the para on Monroe's troubles during the production by saying this: "Simply because your statement is incorrect. Claiming that opinions—at least any positive ones—about her role belong somewhere else, is ridiculous." Why is it incorrect and ridiculous? I really don't understand your logic. EDIT: just saw your newest comment... yeah, maybe you should be a bit more careful in the future. Glad to see this resolved though. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
For what its worth, the article on The Misfits reports that the film has 100% positive rating at Rotten tomatoes, with 13 film critics considering it a great film. The audience score at the same site is 78% positive.
The film score of the film is considered a classic, and in 2005 it was nominated for AFI's 100 Years of Film Scores.
According to [The Numbers website], The Misfits earned 8,200,000 dollars at the box office, with a production cost of 4,000,000 dollars. It did not lose money. And while the earnings were not that impressive, it was the 14th most commercially successful film in 1961.
By comparison West Side Story, the most successful film of 1961, earned 43,656,822 dollars at the box office. And One Hundred and One Dalmatians, which has had re-releases, initially earned only 14,000,000 dollars. It has since earned 144,880,014 dollars. Dimadick (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say books are more reliable than RT or Numbers.com when looking for information on old movies. Rotten Tomatoes isn't a good database for measuring the reception of a film released in the 1960s, as it tends to only feature recent reviews or reviews of major publications that are still being published (Variety, NYT, The Times...). I had a look at the reviews listed for The Misfits, and a good portion of them are by bloggers or indie reviewers, just one (Village Voice) is from 1961, and it also mentions that the movie was generally perceived as bad. The recent reviews by critics writing for The Guardian etc. state that the film is flawed but acknowledge its historical importance and its haunting quality given our knowledge of its stars' fates and all the drama going on behind the scenes during the filming. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Using actual Monroe statements
Since there are apparently no direct quotes from Monroe, is there any reason why valid, reliably sourced statements made or written by her can not be used to support facts in the article? There are countless quotes by reviewers of her films and quotes taken from bios about her. --Light show (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- The article has several quotations by Monroe. As for adding additional quotations, that should be done sparingly. Excessive use of quotations is bad writing style. See WP:QUOTEFARM. Sundayclose (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, Sundayclose is correct, there are quite a few quotes and Monroe's opinions in this article, they're just paraphrased rather than quotefarmed with block quotes. I've removed the quote on Miller as it doesn't seem to add anything new to the article. I've retained the Actors Studio comment as I think it could improve the article to have a bit more information on why Monroe felt so strongly about method acting. I'm however concerned that we're veering dangerously close to original research if we use Monroe's notes or letters without input from biographers. It seems that Light show hasn't actually consulted the book, but the Julien's Auction entry for the letter. How do we know that note is a good representative of Monroe's thoughts and time spent training under Strasberg? How do we know it's not just a random note? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Agree with TrueHeartSusie3. Light show, you asked for opinions about adding quotations, but then you proceeded to add quotations without waiting for opinions here. Please slow down and discuss any addition of quotations here. Sundayclose (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- We should therefore update the OR guidelines to make clear that only the opinions by those who never met the person, and whose sole purpose is to write and profit from celebrity biographies, can be reliable sources. "If we use Monroe's notes or letters without input from biographers," that shouldn't be usable. After all, how do we know she hadn't been drinking or on a sedative or feeling blue, depressed, or romantic at that particular instant in time? We really need third-party opinions, from her analyst or biographers about that. In fact, unless she was strapped to a lie-detector when she wrote her private notes or diary, how do we really know how she felt?
- If you're wondering if some of us might think the neutrality of this article is a sham, which reads more like another hatchet job , don't trust your first impressions without getting the opinion of others about your thoughts. --Light show (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understand how historical research works. We cannot know whether this note auctioned by Julien's was representative of Monroe's experiences and thoughts of Strasberg/AS overall. For that, we need the analysis of those who have researched Monroe's life, because they will have looked at this note in context with all of Monroe's notes about Strasberg/AS. This is also the reason why OR is not allowed on Wikipedia. WP articles are based on the consensus that exists between recognized experts on a given subject. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Her note which you deleted was published in Fragments: Poems, Intimate Notes, Letters . Pages 89-101. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010. It states that on the auction listing. So the fact that those original notes are being sold at some auction is irrelevant.
- I am so concerned about protecting Arthur. I love him—and he is the only person—human being I have ever known that I could love not only as a man to which I am attracted to practically out of my senses—but he is the only person—as another human being that I trust as much as myself...
- What's relevant is that an editor in WP thinks that some posthumous biography is more valid than an autobiography. You deleted those few dozen personal notes because the "quote...doesn't add anything." Yet you added nearly 600 words of trivia and minutiae to the death section. --Light show (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Except that it's not an autobiography, Fragments consists of Monroe's private notes, recipes, shopping and to-do lists and correspondence that were found in her house after her death. It was Strasberg's widow who decided that they should be published. Even if it was an autobiography, we couldn't take it at face value, as you shouldn't rely on just one source or to ignore context. All I'm asking is that each quote we add be representative of larger themes in Monroe's life, rather than just being random quotes. Is the note in Fragments representative of Monroe's relationship to Strasberg and her opinions on her acting and the AS? I.e. did she repeat similar statements in her writing, to her friends, in interviews etc.? As for the Miller quote, I fail to see what it adds to the article, as it's already made pretty clear that she cared about him a lot, to the point of marrying him despite negative publicity and pissed off studio bosses. We even have a quote from her accusing the studio bosses of being cowards. By adding further quotes that don't bring any new information we'd be quotefarming, which is something that several editors in several different contexts have warned you about throughout your years editing WP. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- You similarly deleted the few dozen words covering two of the most significant events in her life a long time ago, claiming also that you "failed to see what it adds."
- Monroe had just turned 30 when they married, and never having a real family of her own, she was eager to join the family of her new husband. Monroe chose to convert to Judaism to "express her loyalty and get close to both Miller and his parents", writes biographer Jeffrey Meyers.[200]:156 Monroe explained to her close friend, Susan Strasberg: "I can identify with the Jews. Everybody's always out to get them, no matter what they do, like me."[200]:156
- Yet the article is saturated with quotes from people like Hedda Hopper and others, most of them coincidentally negative. --Light show (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- The first sentence is not sourced, seems to be your interpretation. As for wishing to be a member of Miller's family and for identifying with the Jewish people, both of those things are still in the article, they're simply worded in a more succinct way. Monroe did get a lot of negative press and reviews throughout her career, and hence we also need to represent that side in the article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I'm also very confused by the claims you're making – you're saying I'm representing Monroe in a negative light that doesn't reflect current historiography, but the quotes you want to be added are not related at all to the reviews her films got, or to her public image. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Reviews about her acting roles or her public image are less important, IMO, for a biographical portrait. The historical narrative concerns her career. When she's acting, she's only acting. It's usually the writer and director that are most responsible for the results. As far as the media industry's creation of public images, those are equally superficial, made for only one purpose. As Plutarch explained in writing his biographies, "It is my task to dwell upon those actions which illuminate the working of the soul, and by this means to create a portrait of a man's life." --Light show (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- In an encyclopedic biography, the focus is on the reasons for which the subject is notable. There's also plenty about Monroe's childhood and personal life in this article. Adding quotes which don't add any new information but rather turn the article into a quotefarm does not improve the article. You'd also be a lot more credible if you actually did the research first and then came here to add stuff, as it's pretty clear from your need to link to Julien's Auctions that you've not even read Fragments.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Reviews about her acting roles or her public image are less important, IMO, for a biographical portrait. The historical narrative concerns her career. When she's acting, she's only acting. It's usually the writer and director that are most responsible for the results. As far as the media industry's creation of public images, those are equally superficial, made for only one purpose. As Plutarch explained in writing his biographies, "It is my task to dwell upon those actions which illuminate the working of the soul, and by this means to create a portrait of a man's life." --Light show (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Except that it's not an autobiography, Fragments consists of Monroe's private notes, recipes, shopping and to-do lists and correspondence that were found in her house after her death. It was Strasberg's widow who decided that they should be published. Even if it was an autobiography, we couldn't take it at face value, as you shouldn't rely on just one source or to ignore context. All I'm asking is that each quote we add be representative of larger themes in Monroe's life, rather than just being random quotes. Is the note in Fragments representative of Monroe's relationship to Strasberg and her opinions on her acting and the AS? I.e. did she repeat similar statements in her writing, to her friends, in interviews etc.? As for the Miller quote, I fail to see what it adds to the article, as it's already made pretty clear that she cared about him a lot, to the point of marrying him despite negative publicity and pissed off studio bosses. We even have a quote from her accusing the studio bosses of being cowards. By adding further quotes that don't bring any new information we'd be quotefarming, which is something that several editors in several different contexts have warned you about throughout your years editing WP. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016
 | This edit request to Marilyn Monroe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The relationship with Joseph M. Schenck is characterised as an 'occasional sex partner'. There is no reasonable evidence for this. Must consider changing this to 'friend'. Arunjohn77 (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done for now: There is a source to back up the information. If you make another edit request with a source, I'd be happy to review this. st170etalk 18:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)- Seems to be sources for this fact (as seen below)...but some sources also claim no sex involved...perhaps we should mention both sides.--Moxy (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Moxy: Which sources claim no sex? Sundayclose (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- E.J. Stephens; Michael Christaldi; Marc Wanamaker (2013). Early Paramount Studios. Arcadia Publishing. p. 48. ISBN 978-1-4396-4367-9.
While in his 70s, he had an affair with young starlet Marilyn Monroe
- Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (1997). The Oxford History of World Cinema. Oxford University Press. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-19-874242-5.
and having rumoured affairs with, stars from Merle Oberon to Marilyn Monroe.
- We should first and foremost trust RS biographies instead of encyclopedias or monographs on other, slightly related subjects. It's pretty clearly indicated that both Spoto and Banner state that the relationship went further than just friendship or business. With there being so much literature on Monroe, it's pretty easy to find different statements for almost any subject in her life. However, the fact is that only a handful of Monroe biographs meet RS standards. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Have to agree with Arunjohn77 on this. The source for the statement is Chuchwell, p. 204-216. However, a few page earlier, on page 196, Churchwell makes almost the opposite claim, saying that a "kiss" or "affectionate greeting" was as close as she wanted to get. Churchwell also supports the idea with other biographers that it was probably another Hollywood "myth". The statement should probably be rephrased or deleted, since it's another tabloidish rumor. --Light show (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Guiles & Summers' statements are cited in Churchwell's book, I'm not citing Churchwell per se as she does not state what her take on the matter is. She doesn't support "the idea that it was another myth", but rather analyzes the different narratives on Monroe in Western culture. Churchwell's book is not a traditional biography, and she's not so interested in uncovering the 'truth', but rather in discussing the different discourses Monroe has come to symbolize and why. You'd know this if you'd read the book, but you haven't, you simply go on Google Books and look up a passage that you can use to back up your opinions, which you believe should be the basis for the article. On top of Guiles & Summers, there's Spoto and Banner, who are more traditional biographers and the two most reliable out there. You've already proven several times that you've not researched the Monroe bibliography extensively, so why argue about this? You've got two topic bans, but it seems you're not learning anything but continue to harass editors who don't want to shape articles according to your subjective opinions. Please stop and reflect on your behaviour for a change and think why it is that you keep getting similar feedback from so many editors across so many different topics? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I'm starting to feel a bit guilty, since you keep giving me free psychoanalytic evaluations. But since your good faith opinions are, as usual, combined with bad faith implied threats, I'm torn between thanking you, rethinking, or just plain hiding. --Light show (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Wait wait wait, you're assuming good faith on my part? Wow, that must be a first. I was under the impression that you think that I spent 5+ months working on this biography in bad faith, as that's quite frankly the impression I've gotten from your ongoing comments here. Well, I suggest we end this now and get on with our respective Wikiwork. Let's wait for Arunjohn77 to clarify his statement and then get back to this. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I'm starting to feel a bit guilty, since you keep giving me free psychoanalytic evaluations. But since your good faith opinions are, as usual, combined with bad faith implied threats, I'm torn between thanking you, rethinking, or just plain hiding. --Light show (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Arunjohn77, can you please state which reliable sources state that Schenck and Monroe did not engage in sex, and why it is that Spoto, Banner, Guiles and Summers all state the opposite? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Why not quote Monroe herself, who "flatly denied" having sex with him? (Churchwell, p. 198) BTW, the sources you gave are all relying on either innuendo, third party opinions, or rumors. WP should not be feeding the rumor mills. --Light show (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Can you imagine a film star in the 1950s stating publicly that she had sexual relationship with a Hollywood producer? Of course not. You seem to completely ignore what I said about Churchwell's monograph, and also completely ignore Spoto, Banner, Summers and Guiles. You've not read any of the biographies cited so let go. I spent quite a bit of time researching, drafting, and polishing this article. You did not sound your concerns during the GA & FA processes, but now continue to harass and snipe on the talk page almost weekly. Again, let's allow Arunjohn77 to clarify where he has gotten his information from. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I challenge you to find one instance of so-called sniping and harassing. Just one! It's actually quite the opposite. Simply read my first comment above and then yours, to see who earns the crown for sniping. That's been typical whenever I make any verifiable statement of a fact. BTW, here's absolute proof of a famous film star who on national TV admitted to having sexual relations with a producer. --Light show (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Can you imagine a film star in the 1950s stating publicly that she had sexual relationship with a Hollywood producer? Of course not. You seem to completely ignore what I said about Churchwell's monograph, and also completely ignore Spoto, Banner, Summers and Guiles. You've not read any of the biographies cited so let go. I spent quite a bit of time researching, drafting, and polishing this article. You did not sound your concerns during the GA & FA processes, but now continue to harass and snipe on the talk page almost weekly. Again, let's allow Arunjohn77 to clarify where he has gotten his information from. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Why not quote Monroe herself, who "flatly denied" having sex with him? (Churchwell, p. 198) BTW, the sources you gave are all relying on either innuendo, third party opinions, or rumors. WP should not be feeding the rumor mills. --Light show (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Guiles & Summers' statements are cited in Churchwell's book, I'm not citing Churchwell per se as she does not state what her take on the matter is. She doesn't support "the idea that it was another myth", but rather analyzes the different narratives on Monroe in Western culture. Churchwell's book is not a traditional biography, and she's not so interested in uncovering the 'truth', but rather in discussing the different discourses Monroe has come to symbolize and why. You'd know this if you'd read the book, but you haven't, you simply go on Google Books and look up a passage that you can use to back up your opinions, which you believe should be the basis for the article. On top of Guiles & Summers, there's Spoto and Banner, who are more traditional biographers and the two most reliable out there. You've already proven several times that you've not researched the Monroe bibliography extensively, so why argue about this? You've got two topic bans, but it seems you're not learning anything but continue to harass editors who don't want to shape articles according to your subjective opinions. Please stop and reflect on your behaviour for a change and think why it is that you keep getting similar feedback from so many editors across so many different topics? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Have to agree with Arunjohn77 on this. The source for the statement is Chuchwell, p. 204-216. However, a few page earlier, on page 196, Churchwell makes almost the opposite claim, saying that a "kiss" or "affectionate greeting" was as close as she wanted to get. Churchwell also supports the idea with other biographers that it was probably another Hollywood "myth". The statement should probably be rephrased or deleted, since it's another tabloidish rumor. --Light show (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
