Talk:Marilyn Monroe: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Star-in-law (talk | contribs) Moved to archive |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
{{talkheader}} |
{{talkheader}} |
||
*talk page [[/archive|archive]] |
*talk page [[/archive|archive]] |
||
== quote?? == |
|||
so i found this marilyn quote and was wondering if i should add it to the article. it sounds pretty relevant to me since so many people think she committed suicide... |
|||
"A wise girl kisses but doesn't love, listens but doesn't believe, and leaves before she is left" |
|||
who else thinks it should be in the quotes section????? --[[User:Plavalagunanbanshee|Plavalagunanbanshee]] ([[User talk:Plavalagunanbanshee|talk]]) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==cleaned up and archived== |
|||
many of the comments here dated back to 2005. more than old enough to archive. cleaned out assorted [[WP:FORUM]] violations, and moved to the archive link, just above. [[User:Anastrophe.|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe.|talk]]) 17:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==relationship with the kennedys== |
|||
someone needs to go and expand the section that talks about the affairs she had with John and Robert Kenndey. This was a big part of her life and it deserves to be talked about more. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.189.101.77|70.189.101.77]] ([[User talk:70.189.101.77|talk]]) 22:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:I'm not entirely certain the issue even deserves a section of its own.--[[User:Downtownstar|Downtownstar]] ([[User talk:Downtownstar|talk]]) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::To user 70.189.101.77, if you have factual information and citations, please help expand the section, or write it here (in the talk page) and we can add it for you. I agree that it is an important part of her life, but it's very important to separate the facts from the fiction. Joe DiMaggio told both his son and attorney that "the Kennedys killed her". Many others have also made such claims. I have a lot of respect for Joe DiMaggio and don't believe he would ever make such claims if he did not have a good reason for it.--[[User:Octavian history|Octavian history]] ([[User talk:Octavian history|talk]]) 05:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Introduction== |
|||
Shouldn't specific information about who believes what about the way she died be in the Death article rather than the introduction? Also, as of now, there are only two theories - murder ... suicide - mentioned, when in reality there has been much speculation about an accident as well. |
|||
The intro also suffers from pompose expressions such as "many individuals believe", which could easily be edited if only they weren't reverted time and again by [[User:Octavian history|Octavian history]], who doesn't seem to be open to anyone but their ideas - not a very productive way of improving the article.--[[User:Downtownstar|Downtownstar]] ([[User talk:Downtownstar|talk]]) 12:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Downtownstar, sorry if you don't like Encyclopedia Britannica and all the other reliable sources I used with citations. You already expressed yourself (in archive now) that you do not believe Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources I used are reliable, but most people and university's would disagree with you about Encyclopedia Britannica. The death section explains the details, the opening of the article mentions her untimely death because that is what has immortalized her just like Diana. There are so many books and documentaries about her suspicious death.--[[User:Octavian history|Octavian history]] ([[User talk:Octavian history|talk]]) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: I was not talking about Encyclopedia Britannica, in fact I haven't touched that part of your text anymore because I can live with the source. |
|||
:::Your other sources are good as well, it's not about that. It's about the fact that the introduction should be more to the point, with details removed where they belong. |
|||
:::The fact is that the article will never go anywhere if you're not willing to have anything any other way than yours. You're doing a good job, just please let others try to improve the article as well. --[[User:Downtownstar|Downtownstar]] ([[User talk:Downtownstar|talk]]) 13:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Nearly the last words of Marilyn to President John F. Kennedy were, "Whoops, I think I'm pregnant." JFK may have sent his K-Men to do her in.? Ronald Reagan, once the President of the Actor's Guild, did an investigation into her death. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gnostics|Gnostics]] ([[User talk:Gnostics|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gnostics|contribs]]) 01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Childhood== |
|||
I went back into history and restored all the original detail this article once had, into a new article space. I don't want to review all that transpired to see *why* it was deleted, but I find all that information very interesting and don't wish to see it vanish into limbo. If anyone wants to trim *this* Childhood on-article here, I've added the main-article-link to the header to allow for easy movement back and forth. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] ([[User talk:Wjhonson|talk]]) 10:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=Spanish Californio ancestry= I once read in a bio that her mother was descended from an Anglo-Spanish family and the Sepulveda family in particular.anyone have more info on this fascinating bit of news?I used to live close to Sepulveda Blvd. in LA.[[User:Jeanne boleyn|jeanne]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=="vital statistics"== |
|||
In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marilyn_Monroe&diff=192711806&oldid=192695393 this unbroken series of edits], spanning fifteen minutes, an IP (i) added adulatory material (or at least an adulatory tone) to the prose, and (ii) made flattering changes to statistics. The flattering changes may for all I know be entirely correct, but their context suggests to me that they may well not be. Somebody more knowledgable about Monroe than I am may wish to check. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 03:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==article lead== |
|||
Do there really need to be 13 citations in just the lead of the article? It makes for very poor readability, especially because most of those things are explored in the article and could very well be cited there instead of junking up the intro. |
|||
[[User:Icarus of old|Icarus of old]] ([[User talk:Icarus of old|talk]]) 21:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Measurements == |
|||
Please explain why a source other than playboy.com should be used. There are only 2 editors, an IP address and Roctavia ([[WP:AGF|assuming in good faith]] that they are seperate), want to use a source other than playboy.com in her playboy infobox. The edits even include adding ranges to her measurements. I am positive that is not what the playmate info said in her layout. If you could explain why you want to do this that would help and maybe you won't get reverted. [[User:Jons63|Jons63]] ([[User talk:Jons63|talk]]) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:i think the editor is simply confused, and believes the infobox refers to her measurements in general, rather than as specific to the playboy article. hopefully i made the issue clear in my last reversion edit summary and this silly back and forth will end. [[User:Anastrophe.|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe.|talk]]) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I hope so, but I did the same thing earlier and yesterday with the IP. We will see. [[User:Jons63|Jons63]] ([[User talk:Jons63|talk]]) 19:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:[[User:Roctavia|Roctavia]] please discuss here why you want to use a source other than playboy.com for her measurements on her playboy layout and why she would have a range of measurements on her layout. [[User:Jons63|Jons63]] ([[User talk:Jons63|talk]]) 02:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::i think at this point, with the clear disinterest in discussing the matter, any future edits need to be marked as vandalism, and escalate until blocked. they seem unmoved by anything less. [[User:Anastrophe.|Anastrophe]] ([[User talk:Anastrophe.|talk]]) 07:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::That was my plan, but I was willing to give it one final chance, probably won't work, but the editor can't complain we didn't try. [[User:Jons63|Jons63]] ([[User talk:Jons63|talk]]) 12:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:[[User:Roctavia|Roctavia]] please discuss here why you want to use a source other than playboy.com for her measurements on her playboy layout. If you change these again without discussing the changes here they will be reverted as vandalism and you will be warned on your talk page. Please don't push it that far. [[User:Jons63|Jons63]] ([[User talk:Jons63|talk]]) 16:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==[[WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers]] priority assessment== |
|||
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 06:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Father== |
|||
I cleaned up a bit the section reporting other assertions about her father. The newspaper article does not mention it, the fan site is not a very useful source and it's own claim is uncited. And I removed an extraneous line claiming that Monroe believed Gifford was her father. The birth certificate evidence, the late divorce and the death report of Mortensen all point to him being her father. Extraordinary claims require greater proof.[[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] ([[User talk:Wjhonson|talk]]) 05:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Filmography== |
|||
Where is the section on filmography?[[User:Anwar saadat|Anwar]] ([[User talk:Anwar saadat|talk]]) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:It was in the section entitled "Movies". I've gone ahead and renamed it to "Filmography" per most other actor/director articles. '''[[User:Graham87|Graham]]'''<font color="green">[[User talk:Graham87|87]]</font> 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Sex tape section== |
|||
I deleted the sex tape section since, contrary to what was written, the existence of this sex tape has not been "confirmed." A gossip story in the New York Post is not confirmation of anything. All that’s known is someone sold some film which they claim is of Marilyn Monroe and supposedly someone bought it. There's no proof it features Monroe or what is actually on the film. Unless the existence of this film is verified by some credible source and it can be proven that it is Monroe and it can be proven it is in reality a sex tape, this information does not belong in Monroe’s wikipedia entry. April 14, 2008 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.202.18.9|209.202.18.9]] ([[User talk:209.202.18.9|talk]]) 15:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:If an article in a major U.S. daily isn't enough confirmation, I'm not sure what would be. Your removal has now been reverted twice by two separate editors. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 15:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Did any reporters from the New York Post actually view the film and confirm that it is indeed Monroe? Did the individual who purchased the tape come forward and say he/she watched the film and "believes" it to be Monroe? The reality is, the New York Post is taking the seller of the film's word for it, that this is indeed Monroe in the film. A film no one has actually seen other than the seller and the anonymous purchaser. The only so called “confirmation” is a gossip story in ONE newspaper. I’m not trying to stir up trouble or pick a fight, but seriously NOTHING has been confirmed. Isn’t it interesting how the seller said that the purchaser will not release the tape or allow it to be seen by others, essentially making actual confirmation IMPOSSIBLE. If I'm breaking and rules here or acting in bad faith, send this issue up the chain and let the Wikipedia Gods settle the issue. April 14, 2008. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.202.18.9|209.202.18.9]] ([[User talk:209.202.18.9|talk]]) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::Sad commentary on Wikipedia that a baseless piece of gossip form a source like the New York Post can be treated as legit. Hopefully someone with a better understanding of the workings of Wikipedia, will come along and have this section removed for good. Interesting, (not a surprise though), how the section in question has become increasingly sexually graphic. Bit of one handed typing going on I suspect…sad…very sad. April 14, 2008 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.202.18.9|209.202.18.9]] ([[User talk:209.202.18.9|talk]]) 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::::It's a pity the guy who bought it vowed to never release it to the public.… Jackass. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.139.135.84|134.139.135.84]] ([[User talk:134.139.135.84|talk]]) 23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::::Not only is it unconfirmed, it's starting to look totally bogus. The guy who "came forward" and "confirmed" it has been on talk shows trying to hype his soon to be released Monroe documentary which just happens to coincide with the sex tape which we will conveniently never see. I'm deleting the section and I suggest you let it lie for a week or so until things become more clear. If nothing new occurs, you still can't say it was "confirmed" just because a newspaper took this guys word for it with no evidence to back it up. [[Special:Contributions/68.166.65.62|68.166.65.62]] ([[User talk:68.166.65.62|talk]]) 09:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I see that the passage cited [http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212141962.shtml this], from the section ''Tittle Tattle Too: You do it, we tell, too bad'' within something called The Post Chronicle. The content is all on the say-so of ''A man by the name of Keya Morgan, a collector who came into possession of Marilyn's sex tape.'' This is fascinating, fascinating stuff! Could this be the same Keya Morgan as is splattered all over [[Talk:Death of Marilyn Monroe]] in connection with some other alleged Kennedy angle to Monroe sleaze? That was being pushed (most tiresomely) by a number of users with curiously similar interests (often Persian) and idiolects, most conspicuously [[Special:Contributions/Bobtoo|User:Bobtoo]], whose earlier exploits had included [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABobtoo&diff=158490095&oldid=157940702 deriving a Japanese photographer of Monroe] -- one "Takashi Oyama", unknown to any Japanese encyclopedia of Japanese photographers -- from (and I here reproduce his list of sources) ''1. The Nakayama fashion guide of 1969." ''[Huh?]'' / 2. "Marilyn Monroe", by Janet Jackson, 1972, Cornerstone Press. ''[No, Google hasn't heard of that book either]'' / 3. The estate of Joe DiMaggio.'' [Where within it?] But perhaps photos of Monroe are unrelated to a snippet of film of her. Anyway, my congratulations to Mr Morgan on his [http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/New-York-Marilyn-Monroe-FBI-informant-black-and-white-sex-film/photo//080414/ids_photos_en/r4098344068.jpg/ recent achievement]. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 10:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Well well, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/14/usa1 a ''Guardian'' reproduction of a Reuter's story] of the same. It's all on the say-so of ''Memorabilia collector Keya Morgan,'' later amplified to ''a well-known collector who owns memorabilia from the estates of Monroe and DiMaggio and said he was friends with Monroe's other two husbands, Jim Dougherty and Arthur Miller.'' (I wonder how Miller's autobiography presents the last part.) ¶ War brewing between Sudan and Chad, US economy going down the tubes, Clinton and Obama still slugging it out, China still upset by the Dalai Lama, Olympic torch farce continuing -- but yet Reuters and the ''Grauniad'' have space for this. Heartwarming! -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 10:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::The New York Post running a trashy gossip story and not subjecting it to even the mildest of journalistic review doesn't surprise me, that Reuters would do the same, is tragic. There are high school newspapers with a greater commitment to journalistic integrity. April 15, 2008 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.202.18.9|209.202.18.9]] ([[User talk:209.202.18.9|talk]]) 13:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::::::::There is enough room for doubt, sure, but the story is being printed as fact by not only the Post, but [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351210,00.html Fox], [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24112286/ MSNBC], [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/14/marilyn-monroe-sex-tape-s_n_96482.html The Huffington Post], [http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN1448222320080414?feedType=RSS&feedName=entertainmentNews Reuters], [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080414/en_nm/marilyn_monroe_sexfilm_dc Yahoo], [http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/15/2216881.htm ABC], [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/14/wmonroe114.xml The Telegraph UK], [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/14/usa1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront The Guardian UK] (which, admittedly, in a [http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2273741,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront separate article], does devote a sentence to raise questions about the film's authenticity). Until the media starts treating this guy like it doubts his story, there's not really any justification for us to do so either. If news sources--multiple major news sources--print something, it's not really [[WP:OR|within Wiki editors' rights]] to say "I don't believe that", as our articles are written on the principle [[WP:RS|X says Y]]. The article should probably be amended to show that at least one source has pointed out the lack of independent verification. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 14:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I've deleted a reintroduction of this crapola, which claimed that ''it was confirmed that Monroe once appeared in a 15-minute long, silent, black and white, [[16 mm film]] performing [[oral sex]] on an unknown man sometime in the 1950s,'' citing [http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212141962.shtml this] as the source. |
|||
"Confirmed" my ass. This instalment of "Tittle Tattle Too: You Do It, We Tell, Too Bad" credulously reports that this is ''what the seller claims.'' That's all. (And we know that the seller has been trying desperately to whip up interest in some "documentary" of his about Monroe.) |
|||
Reminder: this is Wikipedia, not Hollywoodbabylonopedia. And even if Monroe were verifiably filmed sucking dick, what would this tell us about her? |
|||
Not that I'm too enthusiastic about the article as it stands, with the blather at the start about "icon". She was an actress and a pinup; if some people fetishized her there's no need for something purporting to be an encyclopedia to do so as well. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 14:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Uh, you mean there's no need to write her up in a way that reflects majority opinion about her? Again, it's fine for the section to be rewritten in a more skeptical tone (it should be), but when something gets major coverage across the media like this (the story is sourced to numerous news networks that are hardly tabloids, incl. ABC, the Guardian and Reuters), you can't really say "the media is wrong". The media is reporting--credulously, it's true--and Wikipedia reflects what is reported in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 14:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Oh, I see, F M Fraud has now reintroduced this, in slightly watered down form. We now read: ''In 2008, multiple news sources reported the existence of a 15-minute long, silent, black and white, 16 mm film of Marilyn Monroe performing oral sex on an unknown man sometime in the 1950s, mostly on the word Marilyn [sic] memorabilia collector Keya Morgan.'' "Marilyn memoribilia collector"? He's the ''seller.'' Or anyway he claims to have sold it. And he has a great motive for saying so: no doubt this will be one of the sales points of the dreck-to-video shockumentary. And who says this is true other than the seller? |
|||
:And F M Fraud, even if this did verifiably show MM sucking Presidential Dick [surely we should capitalize for the leader of the free world], how would its inclusion be encyclopedic? -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 14:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::You could also ask the question "how is this newsworthy"? And yet, huh, there it is, being printed by dozens of news organs. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's feebly newsworthy because it combines two half-century-old slebs and does so via extramarital cocksucking, which is always ripe for a giggle. ''The Guardian'' gets most of its revenue from advertising, I believe; but it also feels the need to titillate its readers. This story may titillate the dumber ones. |
|||
:::I'm not helping to create a newspaper. I'm helping to create an ''encyclopedia.'' How is some dealer's claim that he flogged some film ''encyclopedic''? -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 15:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
It isn't and this "news" story is getting more and more dubious with each passing day. FM Fraud's continued insistence that this grossly unsubstantiated information be included is flirting with vandalism. April 15, 2008. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.202.18.9|209.202.18.9]] ([[User talk:209.202.18.9|talk]]) 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Sez the IP with numerous vandalism warnings on his talk page. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I'm no Wikipedia expert FM Fraud, I stopped editing when I was informed of my error (last edit April 14, 2008), you on the other hand, have (up until recently) not let up. For the record I have no idea were the bowling notation on my talk page came from, I've never gone anywhere near a Wikipedia bowling article. April 16, 2008 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.202.18.9|209.202.18.9]] ([[User talk:209.202.18.9|talk]]) 15:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I'm neither a fan or foe of MM, but there seems to be quite a bit of hard core (no pun intended) evidence that this tape exists. Can anyone dispute the existence of the declassified FBI documentation of the "French type" movie? In addition," According to the documents, "Former baseball star Joseph DiMaggio in the past had offered [the informant] $25,000 for this film, it being the only one in existence, but he refused the offer." <ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/04142008/news/regionalnews/hard_core_marilyn_106443.htm</ref> As to WHO the man in the film is, we will never know for sure. To maintain a NPOV, this article needs to state facts about Miss Monroe. There are plenty of places to worship her iconic status--this is not one of them.--[[User:TravelinSista|TravelinSista]] ([[User talk:TravelinSista|talk]]) 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
"Can anyone dispute the existence of the declassified FBI documentation of the "French type" movie?" - Nope can't dispute the existence of her FBI file, but I'd be more than happy to dispute the accuracy of what was in that file. How many "blacklisted" actors, writers and directors were labelled as communists in there FBI files, when in reality they were just union activists or pacifists? Please keep in mind this was J. Edgar Hoovers FBI, I think any sensible person would and should take what appears in the FBI files from that era with several grains of salt. For the record a concern for truth and accuracy can't really be dismissed as worshipping her iconic status. "To maintain a NPOV, this article needs to state facts about Miss Monroe" - couldn't agree more, the problem is the sex film accusation is about as far from fact as anything I have ever seen on Wikipedia. April 15, 2008 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.202.18.9|209.202.18.9]] ([[User talk:209.202.18.9|talk]]) 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
The Marylin Monroe sex film passes Wikipedias standards for inclusion. It is properly sourced and definitely significant.[[User:Pisomojado|Pisomojado]] ([[User talk:Pisomojado|talk]]) 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree, but it looks as though people are still reverting the article--[[User:TravelinSista|TravelinSista]] ([[User talk:TravelinSista|talk]]) 03:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Not really, the only evidence available for this is the word of one man with an apparent conflict of interest. The movie the FBI referred to was probably the Arline Hunter video. If this currently flimsy story is to be included then at the least you need to include the context of the various other Marilyn Monroe pornographic claims that were proven to be hoaxed/false. Such as http://defamer.com/380219/exclusive-debunking-the-marilyn-monroe-sex-tape-hoax[[Special:Contributions/24.144.27.89|24.144.27.89]] ([[User talk:24.144.27.89|talk]]) 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Having read that Defamer piece I'll now withdraw my support for the material, though I admit I'm a little uneasy with its total noninclusion, seeing as how, for whatever reason, the story's really had some legs this news cycle. Another spate of articles on the subject popped up on CBS, in the LA Times, the Herald, &c, and the dude was on [[The Early Show]]. I still do kinda think we should report on the claims being made by both sides, if only for the article to serve as a source of encyclopedic debunking itself. I seriously doubt even half these articles would have gone to press, if there was a small section in this article elaborating the claims, their unlikelihood, and a reflink to the Defamer piece. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::"Both sides" -- but one "side" is merely parroting what Morgan has told them. Yes, it's a minor jamboree for the tabloids and for tabloid wannabees such as ''The Guardian,'' but predictably so: people (especially the Brits) are obsessed with slebs, and the notion that one sleb fellated another is irresistible (if insignificant). This will blow [pardon me] over quickly unless actual evidence and significance are revealed. If they are revealed, then stick it in. (And if that happens, let's not mince words; I recommend the section title "Presidential blowjob".) I still think that people will stay away in droves from Morgan's shockumentary, which I predict will be hugely less interesting than a doc such as ''[[Air Guitar Nation]].'' But then, millions of people went to see (for example) ''Forrest Gump'' and actually claim to have enjoyed it, so who knows. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 13:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::''I recommend the section title "Presidential blowjob"'' Something tells me you're not taking this entirely seriously, and I can't tell if you're taking the piss or generally disposed to raving. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You're half right: I'm unable to take this seriously. Morgan gravely reassures any hack who'll listen and write him up that the mini skinflick (in which the "head" role is played by some woman who's fully clothed) is in the hands of somebody with the greatest respect for blah blah blah, yet he simultaneously brags of having pulled over a million bucks for it. ¶ The model for coverage of any ''verified'' Monroe/Kennedy blowjob film must surely be the article ''[[1 Night in Paris]],'' with such edifying content as ''Hilton then goes to the hotel's bedroom and sits on chair where Salomon removes her [[panties]]. She takes a sip of [[Champagne (wine)|champagne]]'' -- which commendably helps those of Wikipedia's readers who are unsure what "panties" and "champagne" might mean. ([http://arts.guardian.co.uk/reviews/story/0,,1841306,00.html Varieties of cheese]?) ¶ Can ''you'' take it seriously? What drug might enable me to take this kind of stuff seriously? (Prolonged television viewing, perhaps?) -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 14:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It's interesting to me that the Defamer article has gotten such traction in this debate. If respected media outlets reporting on the film are not valid, how then can we use a celebrity BLOG that calls itself "The L.A. Gossip Rag" a credible source? I agree that the title "Presidential blowjob" is completely out of line, but using "hoax" in the subject title is also misleading. --[[User:TravelinSista|TravelinSista]] ([[User talk:TravelinSista|talk]]) 14:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::True, the Defamer is a mere gossip site, and (for example) the ''Guardian'' is a real newspaper. True, an article in the ''Guardian'' is normally worth a thousand in a gossip site. However, the Reuters and other material does little more than regurgitate the line pushed by somebody who's hawking his upcoming movie and thus has a commercial interest in whipping up interest in this stuff. They present no ''evidence'' for these salacious claims. The Defamer piece cites (or claims to cite) people who seem disinterested, and moreover presents what at least appear to be arguments worth reading. I think you're using "blog" very freely: Certainly this site is a gossip site and allows people to add bloglike (and mostly inane) comments to the article; but the article itself is unbloglike. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 15:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Although I am not completely happy, I think the current statement regarding the film portrays both sides of the argument--can we agree that it states the closest we can get to a [[NPOV]]?--[[User:TravelinSista|TravelinSista]] ([[User talk:TravelinSista|talk]]) 23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I agree. The section's much more reasonable now than the crappy version I was pushing two days ago before I'd done due diligence. I do think it important to include the Defamer ref, however, because it's practically the only voice of informed dissent on the subject when virtually all the mainstream media sources are stupidly, uncritically relaying Morgan's claims. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 03:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Along with the Defamer article there's another, more thorough article that was posted on [[The Smoking Gun]] website which I added into the section.[[User:Teleomatic|Teleomatic]] ([[User talk:Teleomatic|talk]]) 03:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Nice work. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 04:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::It has become obvious to me that there are editors who want to ignore credible sources. To downplay CNN and MSNBC, but praise the "truth telling" of The Defamer (!) and The Smoking Gun is ridiculous! There has been NOTHING on mainstream news that would suggest that this film is a hoax. There are many of you who are attacking the seller of the film for his ulterior motives, but has anyone looked at it from a different perspective? If he had marketed the film himself and sold it to the masses, he could have made ALOT more money than $1.5!! He is a SERIOUS collector of MM memorabilia. Yes, he may profit from this, but his profits could have been far greater had he revealed her activities to the world. The film is NOT a hoax. This entry is slanted to keep an idealistic image of an iconic woman.--[[User:TravelinSista|TravelinSista]] ([[User talk:TravelinSista|talk]]) 04:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Let's capitalize less and think more. Yes, by the feeble US standards of today, CNN and MSNBC are respectable (or anyway mainstream) infotainment sources. No, the Defamer and the Smoking Gun are not. Now, I'll admit that I haven't looked far (as I'm uninterested in sleb sleaze, Monroe, Kennedy, etc.), but I haven't seen anything in mainstream (or other) infotainment to suggest any credibility other than that provided by Morgan's say-so. The last time I looked, nobody else was claiming to have seen this strip of film, and Morgan had neither said who'd sold it or bought it nor presented any evidence for the sale. Meanwhile, the ''Defamer'' article is written by three people, of whom one is the author of what appears to be a respected book on the subject, and it is argued. The ''Smoking Gun'' article too presents ''evidence.'' |
|||
::::::::::::All right, I'll look at this non-event from the different perspective that you suggest. If the film existed as described and Morgan had sold it to the salivating masses, it's imaginable that he could have made a lot more than $1.5M (I really don't know, as I am not up to speed on porn marketing); on the other hand, if it didn't exist or if its cast were "headed" by some other female (with painted mole), it would get very little. |
|||
::::::::::::You say ''[Morgan] is a SERIOUS collector of MM memorabilia.'' I rather got the impression that he was a serious ''reseller'' of the stuff, but the web page he devotes to this is so confused that it's unclear what's for sale, what's already been sold, whether what's been sold was sold by him or somebody else, etc. (I'd have guessed that seriousness would require copyediting, but perhaps this guess merely reveals my ignorance of the memorabilia industry: [[Mark Bellinghaus|Bellinghaus]] seems hardly any more coherent than Morgan, more verbose, and just as fond of exclamation points.) |
|||
::::::::::::You say ''The film is NOT a hoax.'' You don't give reasons. And there's asymmetry here: I don't say it is a hoax; I merely say that nothing calling itself an encyclopedia should believe a single source who presents no convincing evidence and who is clearly not disinterested. (True, I supplement this with the comment that even if an authentic Monroe blowjob film were proven to exist, this would be mere trivia unless/until proven otherwise. Keep reading.) |
|||
::::::::::::You say ''This entry is slanted to keep an idealistic image of an iconic woman.'' First, you appear to be assuming that she is or was "iconic". This journalistic buzzword is symptomatic of the lint I'd like vacuum-cleaned out of this article. Indeed, I've already started, deleting the claim that she is/was a [linked!] "[[cultural icon]]" but immediately got into trouble (see the section below), despite the fact that the [[cultural icon]] article is a load of cobblers. Secondly, you seem to be rushing to infer the motives of your fellow editors. My own motives are to keep an encyclopedia article encyclopedic, which requires the deletion mere tittle-tattle and/or trivia (as WikiPedia is not toilet paper). Now, if it were later shown that Monroe did indeed give one or more blowjobs to the Prez and that this paid dividends, e.g. by getting her an introduction to somebody important in her career, I'd be in favor of adding this nugget to the article, "ideal" (let alone "icon") be damned. |
|||
::::::::::::Well, sort it out yourselves: I'm busy, and am taking this page off my watchlist for at least a couple of weeks. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 06:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::I think we should take the whole section out, but I agree that "The Defamer" and The Smoking Gun reference is ridiculous. All of the mainstream news such as Fox News and CNN, Today show ran the story and never said it was not authentic. Plus if we can't see the tape, why have a section about it? Should it not be in the porn section? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Samcontacto|Samcontacto]] ([[User talk:Samcontacto|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samcontacto|contribs]]) 08:42, 21 April 2008</small><!-- Template:Unsigned2 --> |
|||
::::::::::::::Seeing or not seeing the tape makes no difference. If you want to go THERE, I WOULD say I never saw her naked to confirm that she was, in fact, a woman, BUT I remember that she posed nude at one point. Let's look at the evidence for both sides: Tapes exists, Reuters, CNN, MCNBC; Tape is a hoax, The Smoking Gun, The Defamer. When I look at it that way, there just doesn't seem to be a way to disregard it. In regards to the comment about putting it in the "porn" section, doesn't that statement lend itself to proving the tape's existence?--[[User:TravelinSista|TravelinSista]] ([[User talk:TravelinSista|talk]]) 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
(unindent) For what it's worth, <s>the</s> an IP address that <s>added</s> added to, and cited references for, the content in question also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celebrity_sex_tape&diff=prev&oldid=193892672 removed] similar content (e.g. "[[Joe DiMaggio]] is reported to have offered twenty-five thousand dollars...") from [[celebrity sex tape]] a couple of months ago. -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 11:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
"Although the dealer did not report the identity of the seller or the buyer, or present any evidence of the film or the sale..." - this sentence alone is why this entire section should be deleted, but since consensus (at this point anyways) seems impossible on deletion, I won't attempt to edit or delete this section as it now stands. But I don't understand how after reading that sentence, anyone could seriously defend leaving this information in. Wishing something was true, doesn't make it true. April 17, 2008 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.202.18.9|209.202.18.9]] ([[User talk:209.202.18.9|talk]]) 18:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
See also: [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn]] and [[User talk:Johnyajohn#June 2007]]. -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
This is just as much of a hot topic here on the talk page as it is in the media right now. I agree with one of the other editors who reverted this back, stating its heavily referenced so I am reinserting this section back. --[[User:Monnai|Monnai]] ([[User talk:Monnai|talk]]) 12:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah, though [[User:Hoary]]'s convinced me, and I've come around to thinking the announcement is 100% bullshit, it is something heavily reported on, and so it's the duty of Wikipedia to include it to the best of our ability. At the very least, I think Wikipedia's primary purpose must be that it is ''useful'' to its readers, and someone not familiar with this discussion we've been having might think, "Huh. Marilyn sex tape in the news. What's up with that?" Ideally, we'd want anyone with a similar question to turn to Wikipedia first and be rewarded by concise, correct information, in this case indicating the strong probability that the tape's a fake, despite the credulous regurgitation of a report sourced to ''one single witness'', and one who has a strong personal and economic stake in people paying attention such claims. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Not to beat a dead horse, but there was an article just published a day or two ago by Jim Popkin of NBC news that digs a little further into this story. In case there were any lingering doubts about the motives or character of the hoaxster involved, this should dispel them. [http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/01/969700.aspx] [[User:Teleomatic|Teleomatic]] ([[User talk:Teleomatic|talk]]) 12:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Cool. Good job. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 16:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Jewish == |
== Jewish == |
||
Revision as of 06:56, 10 May 2008
 | Biography: Actors and Filmmakers B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | California B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marilyn Monroe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
- talk page archive
Jewish
Shes jewish by race or religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.226.157 (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says:
Nominally raised as a Christian, she converted to Judaism before marrying Miller.
So she was no ethnic Jew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.198.72 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Cultural icon
Monroe is referred to, almost de riguer as a "cultural icon", so it's a little ridiculous to be championing its removal from this article. Encyclopedia Brittanica refers to her by that term, as does the wiki article on "cultural icons", not to mention the New York Times (frequently). Ford MF (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- The recent references to Monroe are to her as fellating star of something one Keya Morgan claims to have fobbed off for $1.5MB, not as a cultural icon.
- This article starts by referring to Monroe as a Hollywood icon, cultural icon, beauty ideal, fashion icon, pop icon and sex symbol. (And I'd always thought she was an actress and occasional crooner.) What does "cultural icon" mean that's not explained by one or more of the others? Indeed, what does "cultural icon" mean at all? I skimread its article and don't understand. And I glanced at the single source and it's some graphic designer's PhD-in-progress so gave up.
- Or is there some rule that if Britannica attaches an impressive but vacant buzzword to a subject, Wikipedia should do so as well? -- Hoary (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Was Marylin Monroe blonde?
It seems mind boggling to read the paragraph in this article as quoted:
'He encouraged her to apply to the The Blue Book modeling agency. She signed with the agency and began researching the work of famous actresses Jean Harlow and Lana Turner. Monroe enrolled in drama and singing classes and had her hair cut, straightened and lightened to golden blonde.[14]'
And then see the black and white photograph of her during the marriage to Dougherty or while she was working at Radioplane Company. Are there any clear color photographs of her before she worked for the Blue Book modeling agency? Was she originally a dark blonde, or a brunette? 4.242.174.43 (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Categories:
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Top-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Actors and filmmakers work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class California articles
- Unknown-importance California articles
- WikiProject California articles