Talk:Marilyn Monroe

Former Catholic

Please put Category:Converts to Judaism from Roman Catholicism. - 2600:1702:31B0:9CE0:5430:7225:74B8:67DE (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sundayclose (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Niagara pictures reverts

The towel picture

I tried to add File:Monroe in a towel in Niagara trailer 1.jpg to the section Marilyn Monroe#1953: Rising Star and @TrueHeartSusie3: reverted it with doesnt add anything and not necessarily even free to use. I reverted it back in with It is a public domain image illustrating "In some scenes, Monroe's body was covered only by a sheet or a towel, considered shocking by contemporary audiences." Undid revision 982650762 by TrueHeartSusie3 (talk). TrueHeartSusie3 reverted it again with We cannot possibly feature every image that is somehow referenced in the text. That section already has four images. Please take this to the Talk page first

There are two Niagara pictures in the article, both in the public domain.

This could illustrate "By then, Monroe and her make-up artist Allan "Whitey" Snyder had developed her "trademark" make-up look: dark arched brows, pale skin, "glistening" red lips and a beauty mark.".

Both are illustrative of the text. The other pictures on the section are iconic or illustrate the text. So which pictures should stay? --Error (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The non-towel image from Niagara should stay. The towel image is of noticeably lower quality than the rest in that section, and it gives the section a crowded appearance, so it should be removed. The reader gets an illustration of the sex appeal idea in two ways - from the prose and from the existing Niagara image. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Retain non-towel image only, based on picture quality and WP:NOTGALLERY. We don't overload one section with images. And in this case public domain is irrelevant because there are sufficient available images. There is a mindset that pops up from time to time on Wikipedia that if an image is free it must be used. Sometimes a poorer quality image is necessary because no others are available; that's not the case here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

TrueHeartSusie3 was correct in maintaining original Niagara image that illustrates make-up that created the iconic Monroe look mentioned in text, although towel and sheets are referenced too, I think the reader can understand that text without the lesser quality image.Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Time for a wikibox image change?

My edit to the wikibox image was recently reverted and I would like to dispute it. In my opinion, the following image:

File:Marilyn Monroe in 1955.jpg

is far superior to the current one the page is using. I believe this image is more clear, accurate, and of substantial quality. Please let me know if I can change the wikibox image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedianempire (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, for April 1st! :D TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

No. This image is not superior. It neither captures the glamor of the subject's public persona nor, with the subject's wet hair and water dripping from her chin (fresh out of a pool?), is it representative of how she looked in everyday life. I find it far inferior to the image currently used. 21:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@TrueHeartSusie3 The purpose of a wikibox image is to give people an idea of what a subject looked like, right? I think in that regard this picture is far more effective. There are other pictures throughout the page depicting her public persona but for the main wikibox photo I think we should go for something more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedianempire (talk • contribs) 21:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Fresh out of a swimming pool and still dripping is far from representative of normal appearance, except when the subject is a watersports professional. Agricolae (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedianempire, if any image in the article shows her public persona, it should be the infobox image. And your image does not do that by any stretch of the imagination. The current infobox image is far superior in terms of photograhic quality and representation of Monroe. Sundayclose (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is about Marilyn Monroe, not necessarily her public persona. The current image is rendered inaccurate by the use of makeup and has an awkward angle anyway. The new image is perfectly acceptable in terms of quality and accurate representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedianempire (talk • contribs) 01:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Saying a picture is rendered inaccurate by the subject wearing makeup is like saying it is rendered inaccurate by the person wearing clothes. If a woman (or a man) chooses to use makeup when presenting herself to the world, it is not our place to decry a representation of the choice as lacking in authenticity, any more than we would reject a picture in which a woman's hair had highlights or braids or was dyed purple. The grooming choices of a person are part who their overall identity. Anyhow, the public persona is what makes her Marilyn Monroe and not just Norma Jeane Mortenson: to intentionally minimize it would be like having an article on Neil Armstrong that plays down the whole astronaut thing. Agricolae (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No. Good reasons given. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Lol. I'll go along with it but only if we change Albert Einstein's lead picture too. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think makeup makes the image inaccurate, but it does compromise the neutrality of the image given that Marilyn Monroe herself rarely used makeup when she wasn't in public. There are plenty of photos throughout the page that give people an idea of the Marilyn Monroe persona, but there is no separate article for Norma Jeane Mortenson. Depicting her as her performance character would be like using a picture of Red Skelton in his clown costume for his infobox photo. Not very accurate. That said, the proposed image is instantly recognizable as Marilyn Monroe and I believe is true to her most usual image. People won't be confused as to who the article is talking about if that's the concern. The change of infobox photo does not minimize her career in the public sphere nor does it portray her in a way that is inaccurate. Please reconsider. Wikipedianempire (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The analogy of Red Skelton in a clown costume makes little sense. There is a huge difference between Skelton as a clown and Monroe as she might be seen in a film role. Again, the image in the infobox should not be Monroe as she looks in the privacy of her home, without makeup, and just climbing out of a pool with wet, stringy hair. Many woman (and men as well) look very different in public than they do in private, not just MM. And how MM might have looked whether as a character or as she would usually look in public can involve makeup. Skelton didn't present himself as a clown in his public life as Red Skelton, nor did he present himself as the way he looked when he just got out of bed in the morning. If you look at the professionally created images in the infoboxes of actors (and many are not professionally done because of copyright issue), they are usually images of how the actors look in public, not how they look in the privacy of their home. Sometimes they look similar as themselves in public and as one of their characters. How different that image is from how the look in a role depends entirely on what kind of roles they played. For example the infobox image for Uma Thurman does not show her in a role; it's how she look in public as Uma Thurman. How close she is to that look in a role depends on the role; similar in Beautiful Girls; different in Batman& Robin. But her bio infobox image doesn't show her as she would look in the privacy of her home. That's just one example; there are many others. You are making far too much out of the makeup issue and how different she might look as one of her film roles compared to how she would look in the privacy of her home. The infobox image can portray her similarly to some of her characters as well as how she appeared in public; those two don't have to be different. She was a beautiful woman, whether she was Norma Jeane with makeup or MM as Rose Loomis in Niagra. The current image illustrates that. Sundayclose (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that an infobox does not have to portray someone exactly how they look in the privacy of her home, if that were the case most images would be invalid! That said, that is not why I chose this particular image. The current image is a glamor shot from the November 1953 issue of Modern Screen for the film River of No Return. While there is nothing necessarily wrong with using this type of image for an infobox photo, it does blur the line between MM and the characters she portrayed. That aside, the current image has an awkward perspective that takes away from its overall quality. Her head is tilted and looking to the side, and the photo was taken at a very low angle. It looks less like a portrait and more like a picture, if that makes any sense. The proposed image features Marilyn looking directly at the camera, perfectly centered and unobstructed. It is a much clearer portrait. Just as the infobox image can portray her similarly to her characters, it can also portray her how she looked most of the time at home. The proposed image portrays MM in a way that is consistant with the rest of the article as well as her public image, and overall provides a more clear and all encompassing portrait.

Wikipedianempire (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2020

As I said, the differences in the images between MM and some of her characters in some cases is nonexistent. In many of her films she plays someone who looks very much like how she is presented as Marilyn Monroe to the public. The character's personality may be different, but the look is quite similar. That argument has no validity. As for the angle of either shot, I really question your understanding of professional photography. The angle and head tilt do not detract from the image quality; in fact the current image is from a magazine that is noted for its pictorials of film stars. As for clarity of image, there's no comparison. The current image is a higher resolution and clearer. I think we are have reached the point of beating a dead horse; we can argue from now till doomsday about what each of use prefers in an image. That's where the consensus process is needed for a decision. Sundayclose (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Aside from the absurdity of the suggestion that we should use this image, I'd also like to point out that whichever image we do decide to use has to be in public domain. This limits our options quite a bit, and I believe also makes it impossible to use this image.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Public domain could certainly settle this very quickly. As I see it, the current image is in the public domain. It also appears that the proposed image could be under copyright by the New York Times. My understanding is that a copyright would rule that image out since there are free images available. But I'd like to hear from someone who knows more about wiki policy on images. Sundayclose (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe this picture was taken by Marilyn's friend Milton Green and was never copyrighted as far as I know. How is the suggestion we use this image absurd? In terms of quality I think there are larger and higher resolution versions of this photo, but the photo itself does quite well as a portrait.

Wikipedianempire (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2020

Wikipedia has very strict rules about use of copyrighted images because of serious legal implications. We must know for sure that the image is in the public domain. If the image is not in the public domain it cannot be used because a public domain image is available. The image was used by the New York Times. The default assumption is that it is under copyright unless there is clear evidence that it is in the public domain. Sundayclose (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The image was actually never used by the New York Times, I updated the image source. It was taken by Milton H Greene, a friend of Marilyn who died in 1985 and the physical photograph was sold in an auction on October 25, 2006 for $1,237. This particular photo was never copyrighted so it seems pretty clear that it is in the public domain. Wikipedianempire (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2020

For Wikipedia's purposes, no it's not clear simply because you think it's not copyrighted. Details about these matters are at WP:NFCC and WP:IUP. A copyrighted image cannot be used if there is a free equivalent (i.e., an image of MM that is in the public domain). Determining whether an image can be used often is not a simple process on Wikipedia, and can require the expertise of Wikipedia editors who have a lot of experience with images. I think you should discuss the image at WT:Non-free content. I don't think the image will gain consensus for use in MM's article, which would make it a moot point here. But you might need some help if you want to use this or similar images in other articles. You could run into a lot of trouble if an image cannot be used because of copyright issues. You're not obligated to do that, of course, but that's the way I would go to avoid problems in the future. Sundayclose (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The creator of the image died in 1985, three years before all photographs became intellectual property of the producer by law in the US. There is no evidence that this particular photo was copyrighted by Milton Greene, and purchasing a photograph at an auction does give claim to ownership of the image itself (just the physical picture.) With all of this taken into account and no evidence to the contrary, I think it's fair to say that this image is firmly in the public domain. Wikipedianempire (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedianempire (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure where you're getting your information about copyright law. I don't really know what you mean by "three years before all photographs became intellectual property of the producer by law in the US". Anyway, I'm not trying to tell you what to do, but if it was me I would seek help from Wikipedia editors who know about image issues before trying to use the image. Sundayclose (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. IF the photo was never published before 2003, it is really simple: the term of copyright is the life of the creator plus 70 years, so in this case it would enter public domain on Jan. 1 2056. If it was published then it gets a lot more complex, and depends on when it was published and whether when it was published it included a copyright notice. Anyhow, I think the copyright issue, while intended to provide a quick resolution, has done the opposite. It is real simple - everyone but the proposer who has commented likes the current image better than the proposed new one. There is consensus against the change whether it is in the public domain or not. Agricolae (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Prior to 1978, works had to be published or registered to receive copyright protection. This photograph was not published or registered, therefore it is not copyright protected and is in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedianempire (talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Although all of this is a moot point because there is no consensus to use the image, I'm curious. Where did you get the information that an image not published before 1978 is not protected by copyright? And what is your evidence that it was not published? Sundayclose (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

1) You are making an incorrect assumption that if Federal copyright law did not apply, then there was no copyright protection at all, that unpublished material automatically entered the public domain. (Just think about it - this wouldn't work, as all creative works except live broadcast is by its very nature unpublished from the moment of creation right up until publication: the very act of creation would invalidate any claim to copyright were this the case.) In fact, it was the opposite - in the pre-Berne days, archives would routinely claim copyright over their unpublished holdings even if they were created centuries before. To quote Wikipedia:Public domain#Unpublished works in reference to unpublished works created pre-1978, "Unpublished unregistered works were covered by state law. This "common law copyright" in most states granted unpublished works a perpetual copyright, valid until an eventual publication of the work." The existence of these two alternative sets of copyright laws, and of how a work upon publication shifted from coverage by common-law perpetual copyright to being subject to statutory copyright law, was specifically delineated in Zachary vs. Western Publishing Co., a California appellate court decision from 1977. This separate legal framework was later eliminated by the extension of statutory copyright to all unpublished works and (again from WP:Public domain#Unpublished works) the current law is: "If never published, or published after 2002, the work is copyrighted according to the standard US rules", these standard rules being creator's life plus 70 years.

2) Is there any particular reason you are refusing to sign your posts? Agricolae (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a FA rated article and that is a ridiculous choice for a main picture. It neither captures the subject accurately, nor is a quality picture that should be used as the main photo in a information box. You do not have consensus to change it. Certainly, there are other pictures that could be considered. Kierzek (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The proposer has said, repeatedly, that the image currently used is inaccurate because Marilyn Monroe did not usually wear makeup when not in public. I would suggest that she also didn't typically, in private, adopt a 'dripping wet, just out of a swimming pool' look. If the current image reflects only her public persona, the proposed replacement reflects neither typical public not private appearance. It is simply not a viable alternative. If anyone wants to propose a different image, go for it. Agricolae (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

As the photograph in dispute is clearly still under copyright, I have nominated it for deletion. (Or at least I tried - I am not familiar with the typical Commons protocols for this.) Agricolae (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

This page is in remarkably good shape for a high-traffic bio, so I commend the article maintainers and writers. But a considerable number of excess images have crept in since the FAC (have they all been reviewed for compliance with WP:WIAFA and image policy?), resulting in layout issues and MOS:SANDWICHing. Checking multiple screens and devices, there are quite a few places in this article where text is sandwiched between the excess images, some of which should be removed or re-arranged to avoid the sandwiching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)