Talk:Audrey Hepburn

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. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Enduring popularity?

Hello

I've read the part "Enduring Popularity" in this article. I found that the world"Enduring", as used in the title, a little bit inappropriate.

By the word "endure", according to the Wiktionary, it could mean:

1. to continue despite obstacles 2. to tolerate something

I'm pretty sure that by the word "enduring" here, it means her popularity has lasted for a long time, even after her death. But the first two paragraph of that part states that Audrey was not enjoying her fame, which certainly contains the second meaning of the word "endure".

Maybe my English is not very good, but I have some problem reading the title. Thank you for your attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenchan0104 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Howdy! Your dictionary should also have this for:

• "enduring" adjective: "lasting, durable <an enduring truth>"
• "endure" intransitive verb: "to continue in the same state : last <the style endured for centuries>"

So, that will work.

"Endearing" will also work:

• "endearing intransitive verb: "to cause to become beloved or admired <her generosity has endeared her to the public>"

Try using www.m-w.com instead. Wiktionary is incomplete, try not to use it as gospel.

- 4.240.165.163 (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hepburn is endearing. Her popularity is enduring (but not endearing). Clarityfiend (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Grandchildren?

Does Audrey Hepburn have any grandchildren? They aren't mentioned on the page. Excuseme99 (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

She had at least a granddaughter before she died, and at least two grandsons after she died. - Nunh-huh 23:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The children's fund

I didn't read too much about the Audrey Hepburn Children's Fund that was started in 1994 in New York. It's a non-profit and deserves a little more mention than just a sentence at the end of the UNICEF paragraph. I believe her oldest son still oversees that even to this day.-audreyfan86 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreyfan86 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the beauty of Wikipedia: if you see something that should be done, you're encouraged to do it! If you think something more should be added, then by all means add it. faithless (^speak) 02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death

Hepburn died of abdominal cancer because it started in her abdomen. It was not colon cancer, although it has often wrongly been referred to as such. (92.11.96.163 (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

I think you're wrong; in any case, you need to find a reliable source to cite if you want to change that information. - Nunh-huh 12:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The actual form of cancer was appendiceal cancer; I've added it, along with three reliable sources. - Nunh-huh 12:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but doesn't the death section still say that it started in the abdomen? After all, the COD is named after the place where the cancer began. (92.11.96.163 (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

The appendix is located in the abdomen. Calling appendiceal cancer "abdominal cancer" is like calling lung cancer "chest cancer". - Nunh-huh 12:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we mention taht it was caused by her heavy cigarette smoking? (92.11.96.163 (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

No, that's an opinion; we could quote someone who had that opinion if you find an appropriate citation, though we don't generally list all risk factors, as these articles are biographies, not medical reports. I think the most you'll find is someone saying "her heavy smoking may have contributed to the development of her cancer" or somesuch. The fact that smoking is a risk factor for appendiceal cancer belongs in the article appendiceal cancer. - Nunh-huh 13:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Before starting this over again, check out the "Smoking" thread above. Best just to ignore this guy. faithless (^speak) 19:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. This explains much. - Nunh-huh 03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors, FWIW, here is a possible resource, straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOxoW9iHQYk 24.95.90.102 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any question now that Audrey Hepburn suffered and died from appendix cancer, which is classified under the heading of a rare group of cancers known as pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) - and it is correct to refer to it as a type of abdominal cancer. The account of her dying days by her son, Sean Ferrer, to which there is a link via the PMP Awareness website, verifies that this was the cause of her death. Sean Ferrer does not use the term pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) - relatively little was known about it at the time of Audrey Hepburn's death - but the description of her treatment is in line with the treatment that a PMP patient would have received at that time. PMP is often mistaken for colon cancer or other more common forms of cancers, even by experienced surgeons. I know a lot about this as I am a PMP patient myself and have written my own survivor's story. I have an even rarer sub-variety of PMP, namely urachal cancer, which has also been referred to as a type of abdominal cancer. I have undergone major surgery and I am continuing to receive treatment at a specialist PMP hospital in the UK. Audrey Hepburn is an icon for us PMP patients. GroovyGuzi (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I have never smoked. Appendix cancer and other varieties of PMP hit people completely at random, it seems. There is no known cause. GroovyGuzi (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

An extract from The Fairest of All by Jocelyn Selim backs up what I have said above. Audrey Hepburn was diagnosed with a mucinous adenocarcinoma, the same type of tumour that was removed from my abdomen in 2006. In her case it emanated from the appendix. In my case it emanated from the urachus. Wherever it starts it spreads a jelly-like mucus throughout the abdominal cavity, eventually strangling the bowels if left untreated. Jocelyn Selim's extract includes statements by prominent US doctors who specialise in treating PMP. It also includes a reference to Carolyn Langlie-Lesnik, a nurse who started an advocacy group and website for appendix cancer at http://www.appendix-cancer.com. I have been in touch personally with Carolyn Langlie-Lesnik, who gave me excellent advice on PMP shortly after I underwent surgery. Back in 1993 the so-called Sugarbaker procedure, which is used nowadays to treat appendix cancer and other types of PMP cancers, was not in widespread use. The hospital that I now attend, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital in the UK, only set up its PMP unit in 2000. If Audrey Hepburn had been born 20 years later her chances of survival would have been much better. GroovyGuzi (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

On her nationality

It seems strange to leave out any statement regarding her nationality. Her mother was Dutch, her father most likely Irish or Anglo-Irish. At any rate, he was a subject of the British Empire, as was Audrey. I think this nationality should be indicated somewhere in the article.

I think the best adjective is British, since that was her nationality, and she traveled with British passports. Dutch-British is awkward (although she was half-Dutch by "blood"); American is an adjective used, but this is best reserved for her Hollywood career, which is the bulk of her career as an actress. Thus the phrase American film star (or even American actress) are technically correct, but apt to mislead. I think some mention of her nationality as British should be made. --Sp3lly (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Her nationality is open to interpretation. If you go back a way you'll see that her nationality was described in a very complicated and confusing sentence - ("Audrey Hepburn was a Belgian-born, Dutch-raised British actress of British and Dutch ancestry") - that appeared to have been designed by a committee aiming to please everyone. I feel that to leave the nationality out altogether is far more appropriate, and if nationality is more a question of passport than lifestyle, I think the fact that she carried a British passport is even less relevant. If we say only British, someone will come along and say no, she was Dutch-British, then someone else will say no, she was Belgian born, someone else will feel it important that she was Dutch-raised .... etc and it will eventually evolve back into that long sentence.

I appreciate the detail that you've added into the lead, but I truly believe that the lead was better before, in its relative brevity. The details and the accuracy - which I support 100% by the way - would sit better in the article itself in the section about her early days and background. The lead really should be a potted history, that tells the entire story from start to finish, but in a very brief manner. I think there is now too much emphasis on her origins in the lead. Again, excellent material for the article, but I don't think it's quite right by WP:LEAD. Rossrs (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the issue of nationality has been discussed before and the older discussion in in the archive. I'm going to remove the British nationality sentence on that basis. The other comments I made, are not such an important point, so I'll leave them, waiting for your comment. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Do I know you from elsewhere on the internet? --Sp3lly (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the case, the main objections I had to the lead were

(a) vagueness - which is rarely a sign of good writing - e.g., "the next several years" and "a few films" (although I agree my "In 1951-1952 she played mostly bit roles in a half dozen European films" a bit lengthy. Contrarywise, my "Audrey became" is more concise than the vague, nebulous "Over the next several years, she was"). So I would argue for something between brevity and precision.

ESPECIALLY (b) the mention of Marni Nixon as dubbing her singing voice in MFL. I don't see where this fact needs to be stated in the lead.

(c) The lead did NOT go past 1967 for her career, which seems weird if one is to call it "the entire story from start to finish, but in a very brief manner." Therefore I believe my paragraph beginning with MFL carries the summary of her film career to brief conclusion. (We could leave out the $1,000,000 but, but that seems as salient a fact as the awards that she won, in my opinion.)

(d) Is misleading (I think) to say she lived in Arnhem in her childhood. Yes, perhaps I have included to much detail (i.e., I agree Kent, England sticks out) - so I would agree to revert back to the prior version.

(e) Leading actors - yes I more than doubled the number. But is it really important (in the lead) that she danced with Astaire in FF? I could see limiting the number to five or six; say: Peck (whose absense here was most lamentable), Bogart, Grant, Holden, O'Toole, Astaire. (I realize Fonda gets upstaged.) My inclusion of O'Toole, Peppard and Finney was both a nod toward "later" fims, as well as including more non-American-born actors, as is my mention of Connery in next paragraph. --Sp3lly (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I don't think we've met before.... maybe, but I don't think so. Thank you for clarifying these points. I do apologize. I did not intend my comments to come across as critical of your efforts, as for the most part I think you improved it. I was really only commenting on the bits that I disagree with and that's unfair because I neglected to mention that I agree with most of what you did. You're right in saying that the story (at least career wise) stopped at 1967 and I support your decision to include the later works. That was an improvement. To comment on your points - (a) Vagueness, agree it's an issue. I think in the lead it's less important, but the way you've edited it, looks good to me. (b)The Marni Nixon bit - I also agree that it's unnecessary. To be honest, I didn't notice when it got added, and I think it must have been fairly recently, but that's something for the article body. (c) True, the lead didn't go past 1967, and I think you've fixed that well. The $1,000,000 figure is not absolutely essential, and yet it is notable and important, and it belongs there, in my opinion. So yes, my "entire story from start to finish" comment was 'weird'. I was mainly commenting about the excessive detail in her origins/upbringing section, which brings me to (d) Funny that you mention the Kent, England bit, because that's what drew my attention to that section. I think it does stick out. It's accurate but it's a detail that isn't essential. Whether it's removed or not, I don't feel strongly about, but my choice would be to abbreviate that sentence by removing it. (e) Leading actors.... once is enough for William Holden. I mean he was great, but he wasn't that great. :-) I don't have a problem with the list of names, although I think George Peppard is very much the odd one out there, especially when he's included among "some of film's most notable leading men". Maybe it could be reworded to remove the word "notable". Perhaps "appeared opposite such leading men as ...." would sufficiently neutralise it. My only serious concern is about the nationality, simply because it's a hornet's nest that's been stirred up before. The Kent, England reference seems a bit superfluous, but it's not major, and George Peppard. Everything else is right on the money. Rossrs (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Peppard was at least at one time considered notable and was the leading man for what was perhaps Audrey's most iconic role. I would rather leave 'most notable' in and remove Peppard. The Kent mention is awkward and and I will remove it.

On her nationality: again. I can see that because it is a complicated issue that it need not be in the lead (strange as that may be on the surface). But that (to me) it should be in the article somewhere: even if one mentions the complicated aspect of it. I haven't read the entire article, so I am not sure if it is at all mentioned. To me, it should be, in what purports to be a biographical piece. --Sp3lly (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Peppard wasn't in the film because he was notable, he was notable because he was in the film, which is what makes him different. What you've suggested about Peppard and the Kent mention, sounds reasonable. In the first section of the article, dealing with Hepburn's geneology it gives details about her living in Kent. It's fairly good in giving some reasons for the moves etc. Maybe this is where the nationality could be mentioned. What do you think? I agree it should be mentioned in the article and because it's not exactly straight forward it could be explained a bit better there. I can't find any mention of it in the article, and you're right, it's important enough to merit inclusion. Rossrs (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to the subject of nationality, I found the relevant style guide, here. It is quite specific in saying that citizenship is the defining factor. Unless we have evidence of dual citizenship, the opening paragraph should say "English" and nothing else about the matter. The details belong in the "Early life" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yworo (talk • contribs) Except that there is no separate "English" nationality/passport and Audrey's father was not born in the British Isles but in the Czech part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and had British citizenship by ancestry. He certainly wasn't an "English banker", more of an insurance salesman/hustler in Brussels, later agent for the Nazis in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.129.71 (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC) In fact, it's very odd that the "Early Life" section describes Joseph Ruston as "an English banker" and cites Donald Spoto's book "Enchantment" in support, when the sentence in question in that book reads as follows: "Later identified by Hepburn biographers as an Anglo-Irish banker, he was neither Irish nor a banker". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.57.107 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

The filmography is still wrong in dating "One Wild Oat" as 1951. The film itself, which is now available on a DVD. has a copyright date of 1950. It is also still wrong in separating "Monte Carlo Baby" from "Nous irons a Monte Carlo" by a year. They were both made at the same time, one in English and the other in French with somewhat different casts. The filming took place after "The Secret People" and was Audrey's last film before "Roman Holiday". The biographical text seems to imply that Audrey made "Nederlands in seven lessen" while she was in London, but she was filmed in Amsterdam before she moved to London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.29.92 (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The copyright date and the date of release can, and often are, two different things. One Wild Oat was released on May 16, 1951, thus the year given. Nous irons à Monte Carlo had a Paris premiere on January 25, 1952. That would, in fact, be 25 days into the next year. As for the filming of Nederlands in 7 lessen, I do not see where you say the text implies she was in London. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The heading in the filmography is not "Year of release" but "year". As it is currently compiled it gives a misleadingly erroneous order of the films as Audrey made them. If you read the text "early career" the first paragraph says that she moved to London in 1948. In the middle of the second paragraph after that, after saying that her mother was making money doing menial jobs in London, it says that she made her first film "Dutch in seven lessons" without mentioning the Dutch title thus implying that it was an English film, made in the UK. The first paragraph also implies that she studied acting with Felix Aylmer in 1948 in Amsterdam which is arrrant nonsense. She took elocution lessons with Aylmer in London in 1950. She never studied acting. The whole article is not well written and replete with errors of this kind. 87.114.154.81 (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Audreyfan

The year is for when a film is released, not the date that the film was made. The year of release is standard formatting and is in no way misleading. Some films sit in the can for years before release, but they are considered as a film for the year of release. For the rest of your comments, please provide a valid source. You do not have to start a new heading each time you post a response to the same topic of posts before it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

IMDB states that "Nous irons a Monte Carlo" was released in France on November 22nd 1951. I would like to see your valid source for the statement that Audrey studied acting with Felix Aylmer in Amsterdam in 1948! There is an internal contradiction is saying that her first acting role was in an educational film "Dutch in seven lessons" and then saying a few lines later that her first film role was in a British film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.144.41 (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't simply change the things that are wrong, and add a valid source to support the changes. I found a source to confirm that what you are saying about Hepburn taking elocution lessons from Felix Aylmer in London, rather than studying drama, is true. But it says she took these lessons before she started in Sauce Tartare in 1949. Not 1950. It can be changed. Easy. If you can provide valid sources for the information you dispute, surely that would be more beneficial than challenging other editors. The simplest approach would be to fix it yourself. Rossrs (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's important to note that the article is classed as "B class" which means that it has a basic structure, and some useful information adequately sourced. The classification confirms that by community standards the article has a long way to go. I've reworded part of the section regarding Felix Aylmer, although looking at just that short passage, it's plain to see that the article needs more than the minor attention I've given it with that one edit. Rossrs (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think outsiders were allowed to change entries anymore; in any case the "person in charge" usually changes them all back. I've mislaid my copy of Alexander Walker but Barry Paris (p.48) seems to imply that Audrey took her lessons with Aylmer either between "Sauce Tartare" and "Sauce Piquante" or after "Piquante" ended, which would both be 1950, but certainly not in Amsterdam in 1948. Her first British role was the cigarette girl in "Laughter in Paradise" followed rapidly by the miniscule part in "One wild oat". 87.113.144.41 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Audreyfan

The opening paragraph

Audrey spent the first five years of her childhood in Belgium ; for much of the next five years she was at a boarding school in Kent. It wasn't until 1939 when her mother moved her to Arnhem (under the delusion that it would be safer than the UK) that she spent a prolonged period of time in the Netherlands. She moved to London in 1948 to study ballet, not drama, at the Marie Rambert school in Kensington to which she had gained a scholarship. To say that she worked as a photographic model is misleading : she did pose for some advertising photos to make some pennies while studying, but it was hardly a full-time job. In any case by December 1948 she was working as a chorus-girl in the British production of High Button Shoes. That was her first real job. I'm not at all sure what is meant by European movies. Apart from Nederlands In Seven Lessen, all her early films were made under contract to the Associated British Picture Corporation and were made in the UK, apart from Monte Carlo Baby/Nous irons a Monte Carlo. Well that's the first tranche of mistakes. I'll come back to this. 87.113.151.153 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Audreyfan The opening paragraph in fact totally ignores Audrey's 18 months of work in the London musical theatre as a chorus-girl and minor performer which are crucial to the development of her film career, as many film directors and producers attended the performances . The photographic work is trivial by comparison. The earliest extant document linking Audrey to London in 1948 is a letter from a counsellor at the British Embassy in The Hague dated 10th April 1948 certifying Audrey's British nationality and saying that she is proceeding to the UK to study at the Rambert School of Ballet Dancing [reproduced in "The Audrey Hepburn Treasures" by Erwin and Diamond, Simon & Schuster 2006 ISBN : 0-7432-8622-7]. The same book contains a reproduction of her contract dated 19th November 1948 with the Jack Hylton organisation for her appearance in High Button Shoes, so her ballet training with Rambert lasted for only six months or less. The musical theatre experience, which lasted until the summer of 1950, was vital to her career but is not mentioned.

The lead section of articles are only for summary of the rest of the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes but they should be accurate and not over-emphasise trivial details at the expense of more relevant material. In this case a crucial part of Hepburn's career is totally ignored. 87.114.31.100 (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC) audreyfan

What I don't understand is why you do not register an account, assemble reliable sources, and work on the article, adding sources for your changes, instead of just posting multiple complaints on this page. You can find instructions for what sources are considered reliable at WP:RS and instructions for how to cite at WP:CITE and WP:REFB. Do you really think that other people are going to try and assemble the sources and rewrite the article based on your talk page posts? This is an open project where anyone who has the requisite sources can edit articles, add the sources, and improve the article. What you're doing here is just grousing about the article excessively. I'd suggest that the edits you have made that were reverted were done so because they don't have proper sources and are done by an anonymous editor. You can make an impact by working on the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Early career section

In the first paragraph is the statement : "Hepburn trusted Rambert's assessment and decided to pursue acting acting, a career in which she at least had a chance to excel.[16]." The footnote is a reference to Sean Ferrer's interview with Larry King, but all he says is that her career "defaulted to acting" which is hardly the same as actively deciding to pursue a career. In the next paragraph is the statement: "Since she trained to be a performer all her life [presumably this should read 'since she had trained...'] acting seemed a sensible career. She said "I needed the money ; it paid £3 more than ballet jobs." [18] but the full quotation from footnote 18 reads: "In London afterwards she resumed ballet training but went to work as a chorus girl "because I needed the money ; it paid £3 more than ballet jobs". The work of a chorus girl involves dancing and singing but not serious acting. She auditioned for High Button Shoes because she wanted to carry on being a dancer not to become a dramatic actor. She followed it with two more musical theatre jobs in Sauce Tartare and Sauce Piquante. The "default" into acting came a little later. The next sentence says; "Her acting career began with the educational film Dutch in Seven Lessons (1948)" but she made that film while she was still in Amsterdam before going to the Rambert school, before Rambert's advice was given, so it cannot have been part of any career move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.151.153 (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC) This section still implies that she made a film for KLM before moving to London and then made "Dutch in seven lessons" whilst in London but they are one and the same film, "Nederlands in seven lessen" made by Linden and Josephson in the Netherlands in 1947 as a travel documentary for the Rank Organisation. (See Jerry Vermilye : The complete films of Audrey Hepburn, Citadel Press, 1995, pp.67-8). The section also implies that "The secret people" was made after Audrey appeared in "Gigi" but in fact it was made before "Gigi" and also before "Monte Carlo Baby/Nous irons a Monte Carlo" (see Vermilye pp.77-82). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.190.14 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Splitting off filmography

What's the problem? It's common to split off the filmography in long actor articles per WP:Splitting. See John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart for example. This article is 70K, which falls into the "Probably should be divided" category. I see nothing wrong with what was done, except the television appearances should have gone as well, and the external links shouldn't be duplicated in the other article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It should have been discussed first, I'd say... Yworo (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mostly, the problem was that it was done without benefit of prior discussion nor consensus. It's not a good practice to come to an article one has never edited and spin off things without discussion. It was also just flatly split off with no content added until someone else came along and moved some of it from this article. If the article is too large at over 60K, it was still too large with this removed at almost 67K, so it isn't the problem. But mostly, it was arbitrarily done and with no attempt at consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care strongly either way, but in my experience this is usually only done when necessitated by a lengthy filmography/article. Neither this article nor Hepburn's filmography are particularly long, so I don't think it's necessary to split it. And, as Wildhartlivie says, 1.) large-scale changes need to be discussed first, and 2.) the new article needs to be more than just a filmography table cut-and-paste job. The first point can be forgiven due the the editor's inexperience, but the second can't be overlooked. faithless (^speak) 04:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

artillery bombardment of Arnhem

Hi there

I would like to point out that the artillery bombardment that almost completely destroyed Arnhem was not an Allied bombardment, but, rather, a German offensive to dislodge the airborne division after their refusal to surrender. Fierce fighting in the streets of Arnhem ensued which the Germans, having artillery at their disposal, and with Teutonic thoroughness, won. The allied forces, and, in particular, the British airborne troops had little more than their rifles and sidearms, with an occasional PIAT thrown in for anti tank defense, and very little ammunition. Certainly no artillery. A visit to the airborne division museum 'Hartenstein', in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, will certainly verify this information.

hderycke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hderycke (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, you are correct during the actual battle for the bridge, but if you have a look at the Battle of Arnhem page of Operation Market Garden you will read "The buildings of Arnhem were heavily shelled by the Allies over the next few months ...". MaltaGC —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Rumor of Affair

I should think that a rumor of an affair would require more substantiation than this quote from director Stanley Donen: "with Albert Finney, she was like a new woman. She and Albie have a wonderful thing together; they are like a couple of kids. When Mel wasn't on set, they sparkled. When Mel was there, it was funny. Audrey and Albie would go rather formal and a little awkward." Heavens, if discomfort around one's spouse at the workplace is the new standard for rumor-mongering posts on Wikipedia, we must prepare for an onslaught of new salacious edits! MisterJayEm (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see: WP:PROVEIT MisterJayEm (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The content regarding a relationship with Finney is cited in two different places. It's been proven. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors, FWIW, here is a possible GENERAL resource, straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOxoW9iHQYk 24.95.90.102 (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullying on Audrey Hepburn page

Hi, I haven't edited Wikipedia before and wanted to update the Audrey Hepburn page to reflect the fact that on her mother's side she had Dutch Jewish heritage. This is an obscure fact but there are numerous biographies and websites which indicate it. Rather than having any sense of discussion about this topic I was threatened and bullied by two users to delete my comments. I thought that Wikipedia is meant to reflect a sense of freedom of information, sharing and discussion. One user called the entry "nonsense". Perhaps he or she needs to say that to the publishers of biographies which state this fact. I'm disappointed that Wikipedia is controlled by bullying users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.113.128 (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to cite this using reliable sources, and establish its relevance. I'm sorry you feel bullied, but in biographies, citations are important, and "what you know" aren't. That is the basis of us writing an encyclopedia here. If you think her Jewish heritage is important, please cite those sources. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that. In terms of relevance I would think that anything about Audrey Hepburn's background is of interest and relevance especially when it comes to her cultural heritage. I do think that saying to someone that their comment is 'nonsense' as did one of the guardians of the page is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.113.128 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've notified the user in question here.  – Tommy [message] 01:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it common practice on wikipedia to have a discussion before a page is updated and in the end if there's a disagreement who gets to say what's right? In this case Audrey Hepburn's Jewish heritage is disputed, some biographers agree and some disagree. Who then decides what to put on Wikipedia? My understanding about wikipedia was that nobody owns the website but many of the hard core users act like it belongs to them. I find this really interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.113.128 (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Show use these sources of the biographers that agree and disagree, then we can discuss adding it to the article. Discussing controversial changes is usually wise but it is usually okay to add uncontroversial sourced information to an article. In this case, the information was both controversial and unsourced so... BTW, I don't think anyone here is acting like they own the encylopaedia, but we do expect people to obey a set of simple policies. One of them is to provide sources for info particular for controversial or disputed claims. If these are not provided then whether the person is new or 'hard core' the info will usually be reverted and even a new user is entilted to do that. In fact a 'hard core' user who adds unsourced controversial info will usually find themselves in far bigger trouble then a new user. Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nationality again

She was Dutch, certainly NOT British. (92.11.37.82 (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC))

I prefer the original, complex list of national relationships (see top of Talk). Yes, it's unusually complex for a led, but then, Hepburn was a complex person. Rklawton (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't remember what the more complex opening looked like. It may be the way to go to avoid constant changing, if it is sourced properly. Could you provide a link to that version Rk and thanks ahead of time for taking the time to do this if you can. One of the earlier discussions did mention this which is why (as I remember it) why we settled on British since that was her nationality when she became notable. thanks again for your input. MarnetteD | Talk 15:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Like I said, she was complex, and a simple "she was British" doesn't really tell the whole story. Here's the way it used to read "Audrey Hepburn was a Belgian-born, Dutch-raised British actress of British and Dutch ancestry". Yeah, it's a mouthful, but it's also very clear. The way I look at it, if someone was born in Russia, raised in Germany, and happened to hold an American passport, I'd be happy to call them an "American citizen", but I'd be hard pressed to call them "American" without further explanation. Rklawton (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't have this problem with Bruce Willis; I've never seen an attempt to describe him as German, despite being born there to a German mother. Bizarre. Rodhullandemu 15:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the info Rk. It certainly is a mouthful but I would not be adverse to putting it back in to slow down the ever changing edits to the opening. Lets see what other editors think. MarnetteD | Talk 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Good plan. Rklawton (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be much better, since she certainly wasn't British at all. (92.13.104.26 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC))

Protected

Since the above editor insists on asserting that Hepburn was Dutch, rather than citing sources or waiting for consensus to change, I've protected the page for a week to allow ample time for discussion. The usual avenues of dispute resolution remain open if there is no agreement. Rodhullandemu 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hepburn was a Dutch Jew, she was NOT British in any way at all. It's also strange to describe her as an "humanatrian" since she was only involved with UNICEF in her last few years. You could describe any celebrity who has donated money to charity as an "humanitarian". (92.13.104.26 (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC))

She had British citizenship and that is backed up by several sources. She also meets the definition of humanitarian. You have presented no evidence to back up affairs, Jewishness or any of the other assertions that you are currently making and this is troublesome. Please be aware that talk pages are not to be used as a forum. It is to be used to discuss how to improve the article. MarnetteD | Talk 19:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm now satisfied that this is the banned User:HarveyCarter and have blocked the IP for a week. Any editors coming from this range, or others known to be used by HC and making similar edits will be assumed to be evading this block. Rodhullandemu 20:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hepburn's father was English and that automatically made her a British subject despite her being born abroad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.92.255 (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Early life

I'm thinking this section is a wee bit too long now. And the paragraph about her drawings (with references) is gone now, too. Though that may have been too trivial to begin with. Rklawton (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on your question RK I took it back to a clean version. It looks like a new editor made multiple edits that removed headers, referenced materials and other things. There were too many edits (all lacking a summary) to figure out what was going on. I hope that this is just a new editor learning there way. In case that it is not we may want to keep going back to the last clean copy until they explain their edits here on the talk page. I welcome anyone else who wants to wade through the edits to see if any of them improved the article. MarnetteD | Talk 02:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I checked out each edit individually. My summary above covered about all that the edits entailed. The paragraph splitting/merging made it look like more work was done than really was. Rklawton (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that RK. I guess I should have said that there were too many edits "for me" to check. Your diligence in taking care of this page is always appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 11:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Ruston cannot have been a director of a branch of the Bank of England in Brussels. The Bank of England is the central bank of the UK, much like the Federal Reserve in the USA. It does not now and never has had any branches anywhere. In fact there is no evidence that Joseph Ruston was ever a bnnker. 91.125.190.14 (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Barretter

Awards

Having just read the article, I find that the many mentions of her awards are redundant. I think it is only necessary to mention each award one time in an appropriate section. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Image

Why was the old image changed to the current image? The older is of so much better quality and depicts a fuller face of Audrey! Yes, the new one is from one of her perhaps most established and most famous film, yet it's of such bad quality - and so small! Someone tell me why it was changed... I'd love to have it changed back!

Stephenjamesx (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Audrey go to Marie Lambert's Ballet School? I dont think it says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michifoo07 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean the Ballet Rambert. Rodhullandemu 01:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Does the caption "Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961), wearing the iconic little black dress by Givenchy" make sense, given that the image doesn't actually show the dress? 208.54.36.159 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The first film photo does (though not well), so I've moved the text there. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn's Parents

Ok.. soo isnt audrey's mothers name Ella Van Heemstra?!? BEcuase, it keeps saying Edda; umm.. nope i dnt think soo, am a TRUE Fan of audrey and i know all the facts soo wwhoever made this im verry sooryy,, with all do respect but her mother's name is Ella (ELLA)...in bold words-->ELLA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michifoo07 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There's some confusion here, and I've spent far too much time sorting out what is reliably sourced. Her mother's first name was Ella, her own first name was Edda. Now, if anuyne has reliable sources that say otherwise, please cite them. Me, I'm just too bored to continue repeating the same old toss, when the overwhelming balance of sourcing is as the article is now. I don't know where people get this crap, but they do need to accept it is as it is reliably sourced. Rodhullandemu 01:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent revamp

If I recall from before, there were several interesting pieces of information on legacy that have been removed. As well, the current writing style has many problems. For example, in the section about Givenchy not being given the Oscar for "Sabrina," the next line says "initially disappointed" and then talks about Katharine Hepburn. Was he disappointed about the Oscar or the meeting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be heavily my responsibility. I've changed and removed reference of the loss of Oscar on Givenchy's part as it bears no significance to Audrey's career. It reads more clearly now.. I hope? Thanks for some feedback! I haven't received any aside this...!! :'( Stephenjamesx (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't the fact about the Oscar that concerned me, it was the wording. After the snub Hepburn made sure he got screen credit to ensure that never happened again, which attests to her character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dress from Breakfast at Tiffanys Sale No Longer Record

I noticed the article states the dress from the film sold for "a record price" which has now been surpassed by the price for Marilyn Monroes "Seven Year Itch" white dress - see article link- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/8585284/Marilyn-Monroes-Seven-Year-Itch-dress-sells-for-4.6-million.html While I prefer Ms Hepburn as an actress, facts are facts. How to re-word this section? Thanks Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn was BRITISH SUBJECT so metric system is in place

based on her origin. metric system. 50.9.109.170 (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging at the talk page, but that is not a license to repeat your favored edit. Instead, please wait and see if any consensus develops. It is best to explain the situation when posting on a talk page, and the above is not clear as to what is wanted or why. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The reference provided for that sentence is from a US magazine article article and {although the print is as tiny as it gets) gives the height in feet and inches. So it is proper to use that first in the sentence. then Wikipedia's Template:Convert, which is developed by consensus, converts to meters. Thus, until either of those are changed, the current version of the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines. MarnetteD | Talk 13:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that, at the time period that the specific section and sentence are referring to, the UK did not use the metric system. As stated here Metrication in the United Kingdom it has not fully converted to it even today. I have to say that there is also some merit to McGeddon's edit summary here [1]. MarnetteD | Talk 14:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

none of that really maters. your argument is mood. There are only three countries using imperial system : USA, Burma, Katar. So its simple: metric system prevails.

Pretty lame for american to force use of his obsolete system in world wide wikipedia

I wish this argument was "mood" Every time some British "celebrity" on Top Gear gives they're weight in "stone" I want shooted my tv Elvis style. Cause were in 'merica and we don't truck with metrisized units like "stone"

50.9.109.170 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please put a comment on a single physical line, including signature (no linebreaks).

No one is forcing anything, apart from some repeated attempts to change the widely used Wikipedia convention of how heights are expressed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, America does not use the imperial system. It uses its own system which shares many similarities with the imperial system. Second, as stated above, the UK has certainly not wholeheartedly embraced or adopted the metric system and many (probably a majority of) British people still prefer to use the imperial system. Thirdly, Wikipedia uses all three systems interchangeably and does not impose a single system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Pets" and "Miscellaneous" sections

I'm going to move these sections here. The way they are on the article currently seems very trivial. Her pets don't seem at all notable enough to be included on an encyclopedic page, and the section is completely unsourced anyway, while a "Miscellaneous" section always looks very unprofessional and makes is too easy for editors to add any old random facts about the subject. I'm personally not sure any of the stuff here needs to be in the article, but if anything it should be reintegrated into the biography narrative. --Lobo512 (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Pets

While resting at home from her first miscarriage, Mel Ferrer brought her the fawn from the movie Green Mansions to keep as a pet. They called him Ip (short for Pippin). Hepburn had several pets, including a Yorkshire Terrier named Mr. Famous, who was hit by a car and killed. To cheer her up, Mel Ferrer got her another Yorkshire named Assam of Assam. She also kept Ip; they made a bed for him out of a bathtub. Her son Sean also had a Cocker Spaniel named Cokey. When Hepburn was older, she had two Jack Russell Terriers.

Miscellaneous

One year after Marilyn Monroe sang "Happy Birthday, Mr. President" to President John F. Kennedy, Hepburn, the President's favourite actress, sang "Happy Birthday, Dear Jack" to him, on what turned out to be his final birthday (29 May 1963). Hepburn is associated with the poem "Time-Tested Beauty Tips" (although the author is humourist Sam Levenson), which she used to recite to her sons. The poem includes verses such as, "For beautiful hair, let a child run his fingers through it once a day," and, "For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry."

redundant words in intro

"and a gamine waif-like figure"

gamine and waif are redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.236.158 (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Audrey Hepburn Commutative Stamp 2003.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Audrey Hepburn Commutative Stamp 2003.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD (What is his problem???)

I used a perfectly legitimate citation that shows the late Audrey Hepburn's full birth name (also shown on 30th anniversary DVD in the 'Special Features' section). I don't know why this individual reverted the edit- and inserted a sarcastic remark in his edit note.

Hmmm... I really am not all that bothered but this shows one the drawbacks of the open nature of wikipedia- vandalism. / -: Oh well, whatever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.171.231.213 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read the entire article. Her father was not born Hepburn-Ruston. He added the Hepburn later in life even though no connection with that ancestry can be found. Also if you had read the article before editing you would have seen that we have a pic of her birth certificate [2] as a reference and the "Hepburn" is not on it. Wikipedia can't be held responsible for the fact that there are sources out there that have incorrect info on them but when other sources show them to be in error we don't use them in the article. FYI using the term vandalism when none has occurred is not a good idea. MarnetteD | Talk 00:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Currently we've written that "Edda van Heemstra" was a pseudonym, which seems a bit strange way of putting it. It would be nice to see a baptismal record: many, and in those days I think most Dutch people have a nickname (used in daily life) that is an informal variant of their baptismal name and several sources say that she was baptized with the name Edda (e.g. Walker, who seems to have dug a bit deeper than most, and the article at the usually very solid historici.nl site (though there seem to be some odd errors there about her youth, if Walker and others are to be believed)). Perhaps what the above editor saw on the 30th anniversary DVD was her baptismal record or her Belgian birth record (I would imagine there is one). It would not be strange that her English nickname was used on the British consulate birth certificate, which contains that odd and perhaps intentional error of her father's citizenship by birth location. And "Van Heemstra" is just her mother's maiden name. Calling yourself by your baptismal or native birth name and your divorced mother's maiden name hardly qualifies as using a pseudonym. Afasmit (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)