Talk:Audrey Hepburn

Timeline

In the Personal Life section there are timelines that don't seem to meet: Regarding her relationship with Wolders: "In 1989, after nine years with him, she called them the happiest years of her life." but she is supposed to have divorced Dotti in 1982 making it 7 years? Plus I am confused by the fact that she divorced Ferrer in Dec '68 and was married again in Jan '58, however I will accept that she met Dotti during her separation, it does not read clearly enough and I am confused enough to not try and edit it myself. Bob H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.223.85 (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Image Limits

What a bunch of bullshit. There are all of these limits on fair use, so if you're trying to find pictures of a movie star, you are pretty much limited to screenshots. But only 1 is allowed. So instead you get nothing more than a page of text that no one will read. I for one think it's a lot more fun to read an article with visuals. Do you really think it would hurt anyone to use more than one screenshot? Would that be offensive? Would it disrupt the delicate balance of this fine website? 70.132.31.235 05:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I hear you, but unfortunately Wikipedia has really been cracking down on images. Even promotional shots are not necessarily allowed, and magazine images were declared taboo a few months back. This is the first I'd heard of the screenshot limits and I'd like the editor who removed the images to please provide a citation for this rule. Unfortunately when you have Jimbo Wales (owner of Wikipedia) making statements that he'd rather see an article with no images than run the risk of violating a copyright, there's not much you can do. 23skidoo 05:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You can use more than one screenshot, as long as you make and upload it yourself. It's only the fair use screenshots that can only be used once per page. If you go to the image upload page, click on "Licensing," and scroll down to "fair use," it says "Screenshots (one per article)." Sorry, I know it sucks. -Shannernanner 06:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The "one per article" restriction appears to conflict with the current {Film-screenshot} fair use tag which states: "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film.....on the English-language Wikipedia,.....qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." I also noted that many of the Featured articles on films and TV shows have multiple fair use screenshots in them. Alan Smithee 09:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too, I don't know the answer. The upload page seems fairly unambiguous about it, but you may want to ask someone to clarify. -Shannernanner 09:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why using images has become so frustrating on Wikipedia -- Wikipedia itself can't even make up its mind. And some of its wording is open to wide interpretation. For example technically speaking a film screenshot is only to be used "to illustrate a film and its contents". In my opinion, "contents" includes the people who appear on screen. 23skidoo 12:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's frustrating. In my opinion too, "contents" includes the people on screen and judging by the number of editors who add screenshots to articles about people, a good number obviously interpret it that way too. The message on the upload page clearly says one per page, and yet Wikipedia:Fair use policy says, "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately". I think that sentence suggests that if one will NOT serve the purpose adequately, multiple images are ok. Asking someone to clarify is a great idea, but who exactly would we ask? There are a number of people working hard to rid Wikipedia of potential copyright violations, and there are vast differences in what each of them will allow or not allow. As far as I can see, in the policy page I've linked to, and in the discussion pages for the various fair use templates, fair use and copyright pages, there seems to be no agreement that images should be limited to one. Many editors, including some very experienced ones, talk about a small number (but still more than one) of images as ok. The only place I can see where it straight out says one only, is on the upload page. I wonder if this is the anomaly then? Maybe it's a carry over from a previous policy, or perhaps was part of an intended policy that was never made official. I don't know, but I'd love a nice, clear policy to follow so that it's not left up to the individual interpretations of any number of editors.Rossrs 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A dispute has erupted between me and another editor at Kate Winslet over this very issue. He says actors aren't contents so he removed the article's only image, which happened to be a screenshot. According to the Oxford dictionary, a content is "what is contained in something". That in my opinion includes actors. Sometimes I think a lot of bad feelings would be saved if Wikipedia simply decided to give in to Copyright Paranoia and ban images altogether. Probably save a lot of bandwidth in the process. 23skidoo 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think eventually that will happen. Rossrs 22:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I took this discussion over to Wikipedia:Fair_use and asked for clarification of "one per article" vs. "limited number" regarding screenshots. I couldn't get anyone to defend "one per article" as the official absolute limit in Wikipedia (see Article limits for screenshot images). There is also an earlier discussion about screenshots (see Too many images in an article.) For now the official policy is Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy criteria #3 The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately. So it seems that mutiple screenshots can be used in an article, but each image meet all the criteria especially #8: The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. Alan Smithee 19:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just a mistake not to have more than one image. Most people skimming through wikipedia and going to a page on Audrey Hepburn aren't really interested in every detail of her life, they just want the general summary and mostly they want to see what she looked like. I like reading articles that have visuals for each section that in effect summarize what the section is about. In this case, pictures of Hepburn in iconic movie scenes and at different stages of her life. This article should be an exception because it is about one of those most photographed people in history. 70.231.227.12 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it should not be "an exception". The rules should allow for more images to be used if the subject of the article warrants it, and Hepburn is one of many that warrants it. This is the shaky ground part of the discussion - everyone has their own favourite who they believe to warrant special consideration. Not that I disagree with you, but making exceptions on the basis of POV is dangerous. Better to have a uniform policy. Rossrs 00:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Just because there is no official limit doesn't mean editors can add as many images as they want here or elsewhere. For example, adding a screenshot from every film that Audrey Hepburn was in would clearly be over the line of acceptable fair use. Exactly where the line should be drawn is the subject of intense debate all over Wikipedia right now. Anyone adding a fair use screenshot or other image needs to clearly state the reasons the image should be in the article (Fair Use Policy pt. #8) and had better be prepared to provide a solid and convincing defense if challenged. If people can't excercise restraint in the use of fair use images, then it will eventually come down to a limit of one fair use image per article or no images at all. Alan Smithee 00:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the place up a bit, and I'll continue to do so until it is a featured article. Still need to source everything. I prefer actually doing things instead of debating about doing things. 67.161.26.190 11:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

re: did not read the entire article but have to concur with the initial statement. there is inadequate visuals to complement the articles in wikipedia. also, a lot of the pictures aren't exactly the best in terms of being representative of that person nor the most update. im a newbie contributor by the way haha don't know much but have only been doing many grammatical corrections only to realise i used wikipedia as a resource so much i should just make an account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony4moroney (talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

UNICEF in her early life

I'm new at this and apologize if I violate any protocol. I merely wanted to point out the last line under the "Early Life" section appears to state that Ms. Hepburn's life was saved by UNICEF immediately after the end of the Second World War. This would have been impossible given that UNICEF didn't come into existence until 1946. --Uciwikipediaguy 01:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency. Shannernanner 06:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That is true ; but she got much needed food and drink from UNRRA, another UN agency. Audreyfan Audreyfan

Charade image

The Charade image used in the infobox is terrific, but unfortunately I fear someone might try to remove it citing the arguments (I'll call them arguments) ongoing regarding fair use images at Kate Winslet and other articles. Apparently one "interpretation" of Wikipedia's fair use image rules is that screenshots showing actors are not acceptable in biographical articles. I disagree 100% so as such I have no intention of touching the Charade image (or any other screenshots that may be used in this article) ... but I'm just giving a friendly heads up that if the Fair Use copyright police happen to swing by, the image might suddenly disappear. 23skidoo 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This one should be fine. Charade is in the public domain and as such screenshots from it are also in the public domain. Rossrs 01:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There's some problem since the picture comes from the audrey1.com website...which is foolish since the other 2 Charade pictures also came from that website...but I have sent an e-mail to the admin of audrey1.com asking for permission. I think it'll be fine. I think it's a great image for the article. And I've ordered a Hepburn bio and plan on properly referencing everything, so hopefully pretty soon this article will get cleaned up and will remain static.67.161.26.190 06:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely forgot about the fact Charade is public domain. I stand corrected. 23skidoo 01:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the admin email account for Audrey1 gets inundated with spam and I must have missed the request to use the Charade image - Beaker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.0.230.234 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Filmography

The filmography is wrong. "Monte Carlo Baby" and "Nous irons a Monte Carlo" were made at the same time, with slightly different casts, after "The secret people". I have a copy of "One wild oat" and it has a copyright date of 1950, which means it was her first English speaking role (for all of 30 sceonds) to appear ; whether it was made before "Laughter in Paradise" I do not know. Audreyfan Audreyfan

The filmography follows the imdb.com filmography. But imdb might be wrong, who knows. 67.161.26.190 01:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Audreyfan, and in fact if you check the wikilinks you'll see both titles are linked to the same article. It is possible that the two films, while made at the same time (as noted in the article on the film which I created a couple of weeks ago) might have been released at different times. In terms of the IMDb filmography, it shouldn't be considered the epitome -- filmographies should also be compiled from biographies and other sources. For example, the IMDb for about 2 years had Audrey listed as appearing in "A New Kind of Love" which she is not. We also have to be careful not to copy the IMDb style otherwise that's a copyvio; that's why I reversed the order of the filmography awhile back. Only the IMDb lists start with the most recent. 23skidoo 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The IMDb is certainly incorrect as regards the order of the films and it is internally self-contradictory. Filmographies should be based on research not merely on the adaptation of somebody else's list. Audreyfan

I've done some amendments, but I don't know how to change "One wild Oat" to 1950. Audreyfan

Quotes section

Is this a necessary section? Isn't that what Wikiquote is for? 67.161.26.190 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Check other biographical articles. They appear elsewhere. Not everyone uses Wikiquote. I removed the bullets because that made things extremely awkward; I'm not too fond of the existing indents either. 23skidoo 01:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the bullets were a dumb idea, now that I think about it. I just don't like those indents. How about eliminating them altogether? 70.231.232.226 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a query

The main pic from Charade. Was it ever there in the movie. I saw the movie yesterday and nowhere did I find this pose. I wonder if it is really a screengrab

Please sign your comments. It's from the closing scene in the theatre when Reggie is looking up from the conductor's box. Presumably it's a screengrab from the DVD. I remember the scene. 23skidoo 18:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

New infobox image

I have no objection to the new image, however it should be noted that discussion at Wikipedia:Fair Use has established that Wikipedia has basically prohibited the use of publicity shots of this type, since they are still copyright (at least in the US). It's a sore spot with me as I feel such images are necessary and justified, but just fair warning that the copyvio police might take this one away. 23skidoo 04:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a picture like this is completely necessary. And I've noticed that in the Vivien Leigh (featured) article, there is a publicity still used. The rationale is:

"No free or public domain images have been located for this film, and the only free use image that has been located for Vivien Leigh depicts her much later in life. Image is a promotional photograph, intended for wide distribution as publicity for the film. As the role of Scarlett O'Hara is arguably one of the most significant film roles in history, and certainly the most widely seen and noteworthy role in the career of the actress, Vivien Leigh, it is appropriate that it be illustrated in a comprehensive article about the actress. The image reflects the way she is most remembered, and in addition to providing an illustration for the discussion of the role, it also accurately depicts her appearance at the time, which links to the various references throughout the article to her beauty. Image is of considerably lower resolution than the original, and is used for informational purposes only. Its use does not detract from either the original photograph, or from the film itself."

I think we can make similar arguments in this case. 70.132.28.57 07:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, but unfortunately I've run into this problem before. The problem is - and yes, it sounds nutty - is that under the fair use rules, such images cannot be used "to simply illustrate what a person looks like". The fact the publicity shot at Vivien Leigh is still there probably just means they (the copyvio cops) haven't gotten to it yet. We ran into this problem at Glenn Ford and Kate Winslet and a publicity photo at Don Freed (an article about a singer) is going to be removed soon, too. I believe the Milla Jovovich article has also had this trouble. The fair use rules have in my opinion gotten so far out of hand that last week I actually quit Wikipedia in disgust for a couple of days over this very issue until I was talked back into the fold by a fellow editor. The specific rule I'm citing is at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples (see No. 8). That said -- the rule specifically states that it applies to living persons, so it's possible that's a loophole for keeping the Audrey and Vivien Leigh images, since neither actress is still with us; but that doesn't explain why we ran into Fair Use problems with publicity images for the now-deceased Glenn Ford. 23skidoo 13:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I won't tell if you don't. :) Worst case is we'll just say "oops" and put the Charade screenshot back up. Whoops, never mind. It's already gone. Looks like there is a real tussle going on in the editing page. I agree with Irpen. If we can't use a publicity picture, is there some reason why we can't use a screenshot from an earlier movie? Hepburn's public image will always be the one from the 50's, when she had the short hair and the thicker eyebrows. 70.231.251.129 14:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can find another public domain image which you feel better illustrates the article, it is fine to use it in the infobox. The only problem is that you cannot replace a free use image with a fair use one. Shannernanner 14:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It was asked that I discuss the new image on the talk page, though I believe I have specifically stated why replacing it with a fair use image is not supported by policy; it is on the Wikipedia:Fair use page. It is especially emphasized throughout Wikipedia that a public domain image be used in the infobox if at all possible, and if one is found, not be replaced with a fair use image. If you feel the publicity shot is necessary to illustrate the article, please insert the proper fair use rationale and put it elsewhere on the page. Shannernanner 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so you're saying the publicity pic is okay for the article, but just not on the infobox? I'll put it up then. 70.231.243.225 08:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So what's wrong with this article?

What would keep this from being a Good Article? Not enough references? References not referenced properly (no author, title, year, etc)? Sloppy writing? Seems pretty good to me, although some additions could be made, and I should do that when I have the time. According to WikiCharts, this article gets 2,519 ± 28% views/day. Let's get our acts together! 70.231.243.225 08:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The name game

Perhaps the best way to avoid the continuous yo-yo-ing regarding the birth name is to add a section specificially discussing the fact that different sources give different birth names. The birth certificate linked -- which shows Audrey Kathleen Hepburn as her birth name and Edda Van Heemstra as her mother's name -- should be treated as definitive, but it is probably worth acknowledging that there is some confusion. (Just as you still come across sources that refer to Audrey as being a close relative to Katherine Hepburn (as opposed to being a 10th cousin four times-carry-the-two removed. ;-) ). Thoughts? 23skidoo 16:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the birth certificate shows that she was named 'Audrey Kathleen Ruston.' The Hepburn was added later by her parents. But yes, I agree that an acknowledgement of the confusion arising over her name because of inaccurate accounts that are constantly being repeated would be useful. --Sp3lly 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new and haven't made an account yet. I'm a longtime fan of Audrey Hepburn and have read all of her biographies. I can't remember exactly which biography it was, but according to one biography she was actually named "Andrey" at birth. There was so much confusion with people thinking she was named "Audrey" that she eventually just changed it to "Audrey" officially.

Don't start that up again. Her birth certificate says Audrey. 70.132.22.226 00:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

it is clear from her birth certificate that she was named Audrey Kathleen Ruston. --Sp3lly 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you had read ALL her biographies it would be clear that Charles Highams biography is incorrect as you would have seen the birth certificate in Sean Ferrers book - Beaker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.0.230.234 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

What evidence is there that she had a grandmother called Kathleen Hepburn. According to Alexander Walker's biography the only Hepburn in the family history was one Isabella Hepburn (who claimed to be a descendant of the Earl of Bothwell, Mary Stuart's second husband and a Hepburn) who married her great-grandfather, but with whom he had no children.

• • • Text deleted by 23skidoo on the grounds of WP:BLP.***

A paragraph that was located above contained an unsourced and potentially libellous accusation regarding a living person (specifically the author Donald Spoto). Although it is generally bad form to remove other people's comments from talk pages, under the policy of WP:BLP, we are allowed to remove potentially libellous, unsourced comments from articles and talk pages at any time. 23skidoo 22:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The removal is completely ridiculous. Editors are entitled to express their opinion of how well or how poorly Donald Spoto's biographies are sourced, and how closely they seem to hew to reality. Discussing the reliability of sources is entirely necessary for the development of an encyclopedia. The removed material was entirely appropriate. - Nunh-huh 22:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is she really just a very distant relative of Katherine Hepburn. I came here looking to see how they were related (just assuming they must be). Any relation or the fact that they are only very distant relatives should be on this page. I'm sure I'm not the only one who just assumed they were closely related. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Influence

Audrey Hepburn and her lines in various movies are referenced frequently in a 2006 anime called REC I'm not sure if it should be mentioned on her page. Please execuse me if I violated anything, first post ever on wiki. --88.159.68.205 12:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

it might be appropriate in a short paragraph that lists many modern films that reference Audrey Hepburn and her films; for instance I've heard that in one scene in Pretty Woman, one of Audrey's movies is showing in the background, and there are maybe five other examples of this I have heard of. --Sp3lly 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Enduring Popularity: little black dress from Breakfast at Tiffany's

I like the paragragh very much. But in the sense of absolute clarity and accuracy, I wouldnt mind changing two things

1. making it clear that the dress auctioned by Christie's was NOT the dress worn by Audrey in the movie. This is clear from both photos of the dress [1] and also by the description of the dress in the official Christie's auction catalog. [2]

2. I think the current reference (The Independent) given in this section should be changed, because it erroneously reports that the dress sold at the auction was the one worn by Audrey in the film Breakfast at Tiffany's. Although this is a common mistake (both AP and Reuters are also stating this), the BBC article correctly states that this is not the case. [3] --Sp3lly 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate whoever implemented the above suggestions. However, there is a further clarification that needs to be made. We really do not know where the dress that Audrey actually wore in the movie is. The version that was auctioned off is clearly not it - as plainly stated in the Christie's Catalog. However, the version of the dress in Madrid is also not it, because that dress also has a slit up the left side of the dress (this is also stated in the Christie's Catalog). This would seem to indicate that the dress held by the Givenchy Archive is "the" dress worn by Audrey in the movie. This could be the case, but we cannot automatically assume it is. First, it would definitely have to have no slit up the left side. Second, thanks to some brilliant thinking by a friend, if the one in the Givenchy Archive is the proto-type for the two others (both of which have slits) then the one in the Givenchy Archive would also have a slit-meaning none of these three dresses were worn by Audrey in the movie.

Instead, it could be that Audrey wore a version of the dress made by Edith Head. Indeed, the previous item in the Christie's catalog shows a sketch of the little black dress and the white sash; the dress has no slit and has a more square neckline, exactly like the one in the movie. The sketch is signed by Edith Head. (The photo of the sketch is not available on line, but it is posted on the audrey1.com forum - where this topic has been discussed at great length and detail.) We do not know for sure where the dress is that Audrey actually wore: it could be the one in the Givenchy Archive - but only if that one does not have a slit. It could be one made (altered) by Edith Head (assuming she did indeed make the dress as it appears in her sketch, which again is indistinguishable from the one Audrey actually wore.) In fact there were probably two or three of these "no-slit" versions made, since a couple of doubles would have been necessary while filming.

Which is just to say that I am going to tweak the relevant section in the article. --Sp3lly 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Catalog makes it clear that the dress sold was never worn by Hepburn, the dress in Madrid was worn by her in publicity shots, and the one in the Givenchy archive without the slit is the one that she wore in the film. 70.231.234.224 01:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement regarding this is incorrect. The catalog states that the dress in Madrid has a slit just like the one sold at auction on December 5th 2006. It does NOT say it was used in the movie. There are no known publicity shots showing Audrey wearing a dress with the slit visible. The version of the dress won in the movie differs from the dress sold at auction and the dress in Madrid because it does not have a slit, period. It is not public knowledge whether the dress in the Givenchy archive has a slit. There seems to be a few incorrect assumptions here - Beaker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.0.230.234 (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Nice page

Very informational, somebody really made it very descriptive, much better and longer than the last time i saw it 75.52.173.64 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)missy 1234

Although the level of detail about her cancer treatment is beyond bizarre. BennyFromCrossroads 15:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The cancer bit was summarized from Sean Ferrer's autobiography. I guess not everyone is as science inclined, but I find it all fascinating. 67.161.26.190 09:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Czech? French?

Any citation for Joseph Ruston being half-Czech? I read the excerpt from Spoto's biography, and it just says that he was an Englishman. As far as I can tell, her mother was full Dutch and her father was English with some deep Scottish roots, so where did the French come from? 67.161.26.190 04:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Got this so called quote off of “http://www.filmsbot.com/actor/a/audrey_hepburn/”. Any truth to this? "My mother is Dutch, my father is Irish and I was born in Belgium, if I was a dog I'd be in a right mess." JOHN_RICHARD_LEONARD

UNICEF quotes

There seem to be a lot of them. It's a bit repetitive after the first one or two and doesn't really add anything. Anybody agree to getting rid of most of them? Clarityfiend 05:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I like that whole section. UNICEF was a huge part of her life and it's interesting to see the progression of her descriptions. By the time she gets to Somalia, she realizes how awful the situation is, and from then on it consumed her. 67.161.26.190 09:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Awkward "Dutch-British Actress" intro

re:Audrey Hepburn (May 4, 1929 – January 20, 1993) was an Academy Award-winning Dutch-British actress of film

---

This is a bit awkward for the leading sentence, how about just actress, and leave the Dutch-British part for later in his bio to describe her origins. Dutch-British? There's got to be a better way to summarize Audrey's notability in the first sentence. AnyonePiperdown 02:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea that we need to summarize a person's nationality in the first sentence is silly, but lots of people seem to like it. In this case, there's no way to say she was British, Belgian-born, of Dutch and British ancestry, and became famous acting in American movies without emphasizing nationality to a ridiculous degree, and it's al information already contained in the article. No need for a hyphenated summary in the first sentence. - Nunh-huh 02:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Findagrave" site on many celebrity pages

Does this site meet WP:RS guidelines? I wouldn't think so. Anyone can help with this matter?Piperdown 02:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

External links don't fall under WP:RS. They fall under WP:EL. --PhantomS 06:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

In reading this article, the language doesn't feel very objective. Many statements are weasel-like ("many people consider her to be...") followed with compliments. Could these be rewritten to read more like an encyclopedia? Yavoh 17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why yes, it certainly can be. faithless (^speak) 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Succession Boxes

Is there a way to make the succession boxes at the bottom of the page collapsible so they don't take up so much room? I would, but I don't know how. Thanks! — Yavoh 14:45, 31 October 2007 (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. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Important link

Would you mind adding the following external link to the article, please:

• Interview with Sean Hepburn Ferrer This interview with the oldest son of Audrey Hepburn deals with some aspects of her biography, of her charakter and her "Selbstverständnis", influence and receptions of her activities, her engagement for children in the poorest states of the world concerning her activity as goodwill ambassador to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) as well as with The Audrey Hepburn Children's Fund which is a result of her efforts.

Thanks so far, -- H.Albatros (German Wikipedia) 20:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A Descendant?

How she could be a descendant of James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell? Lord Bothwell had stillborn twins- http://www.thepeerage.com/p10190.htm#i101892 Kowalmistrz (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And none of the references really proves it, one says it's impossible to verify. Shouldn't this bit be removed? --86.169.211.29 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Stamps

User:Mcatch23 has continued to reenter info about AH's Canadian stamp without providing a source. The editor has also opened a thread about this here Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Audrey_Hepburn where an uninvolved editor gave several suggestions about what to do. This editor has followed none of these. Although Mcatch23 is well beyond the 3rr rule I propose giving him/her one more day to provide a source and to move the item to the section where the US stamp (which does have a source) is mentioned. If this does not happen we will probably have to report them and see what happens. Any other editors thoughts are welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Biographies

It seems that not only are the biographies much longer than any other section in the article. They're also poorly organized. I don't know enough about Audrey to organize and rewrite it. I also think that each section should be shortened or a couple of them should be combined. So if anyone could do that, it would be great. Sylfi (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Smoking

Shouldn't her death section mention the fact that Audrey usually smoked 40-60 cigarettes a day? I mean, it's pretty important considering it caused her cancer. (92.12.51.5 (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

Who says it caused her cancer? Rossrs (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Every biography I have read, plus it is well known that smoking as heavily as Hepburn did causes abdominal cancer. (92.12.51.5 (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

Unless you're a doctor and you've treated cancer patients, including Audrey Hepburn, nobody cares what you think causes abdominal cancer, so stop placing the information in the article to suggest it caused her death. Here's a link from an interview with her son, Sean Ferrer, the author of Audrey Hepburn: An Elegant Spirit.

He says "Hers wasn't smoking-related. She had a primary in her appendix. Hers was unusual." Just to restate the main point "Hers wasn't smoking-related" - said Sean Ferrer. It seems odd that while promoting the book he would baldly contradict such an important point. Just in case anyone is swayed by your assertions. Rossrs (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

He's lying. She got cancer because she sucked her way through too many cigarettes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.222.107 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And the only reason he's denying it there is because he is a heavy smoker himself and he is going to die of cancer just like his mother did. That article is worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.222.107 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd. The source you're citing refutes your assertion. Please stop. faithless (^speak) 19:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You call Sean Ferrer a liar, and cite his book? Rossrs (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

TO ALL: This is the banned sock-puppet HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) using IP range 92.x.x.x flipping his usual shit. He says things, with no truth to them, just see people's reactions. He is not worth the time of day. IGNORE, DELETE/REVERT, an move on. - 4.240.165.56 (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ballet lessons

I just finished watching an interview with Hepburn during her Roman Holiday screen test - where she describes her ballet lessons in Arnhem as being before 1944. Could someone consider updating this article to read "during" rather than "after" the war in relation to those lessons? Thanks. --Mantality (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

REFERENCES:

1:"The Nazis seized the family estate and all goods by 1942. Audrey's escape was through her discipline and passion for ballet. Audrey studied at the Arnhem Conservatory of Music and Dance during the war and later in England at the famed Notting Hill Gate School user Marie Rambert's direction."

2:"She carried messages for the Resistance, danced at ballet recitals to raise money for the underground and emerged from the war anemic and malnourished.

3:"She was born Audrey Hepburn-Ruston on May 4, 1929, near Brussels, Belgium, and was the daughter of an English banker and a Dutch baroness. After her parents divorced, she attended a girls' school in London. On vacation with her mother in Arnhem, Holland, when World War II began, she spent the war years in the Nazi-occupied town and received training in ballet at the Arnhem Conservatory.

In an interview in 1953 with The Associated Press, she said: "After living the long months and years under the Germans, you dreamed what would happen if you ever got out. You swore you would never complain about anything again".

Ms. Hepburn went to London on a ballet scholarship after the war. With a tall, slim figure and her large eyes, she was a natural as a fashion model. Acting classes and bit parts in British movies followed. A meeting with Colette, the French novelist, led to Ms. Hepburn's starring role in the Broadway adaptation of Colette's Gigi. Her ascent to acting success had begun."

4:"Hepburn, born Edda Hepburn von Heemstra in Brussels, Belgium, on May 4, 1929, was taken to Holland from England in 1939 by her mother when her parents divorced. The Nazis invaded. A brother was sent to a Nazi camp. Other relatives were executed. Hepburn studied ballet in Arnhem, participated in clandestine amateur shows to raise money for the Underground. She and her mother ate tulip bulbs to stay alive. In 1948, they returned to England, where she studied ballet with Marie Rambert."

5:"She was the daughter of landed royalty. Mother was Dutch Baroness Ella van Heemstra. Father was Anglo-Irish banker John Hepburn-Ruston, who left when Audrey was 6. The baroness took Audrey and her half-brothers (by Ella`s previous marriage) to her ancestral estate in Arnhem, the Netherlands, in 1939. Audrey, in thrall to dancer Margot Fonteyn, studied ballet. The war years exacted several pounds of flesh from the baroness and her children. After one son was sent to a German concentration camp, the baroness and Audrey continued to deliver messages for the Dutch Resistance in food-deprived Arnhem. They survived by nibbling endive and munching tulip bulbs. Though some accuse her of making anorexia glamorous, wartime malnutrition is the reason for Audrey Hepburn's underweight. Three years after peace was declared, the baroness and Audrey went to England, where the younger woman had received a scholarship to study with ballet genius Marie Rambert. The future actress left Arnhem as Edda van Heemstra and arrived in London as Audrey Hepburn, anglicizing her first name and taking her father's surname. The aspiring ballerina was embarrassed by her height (5 feet, 7 inches) and feet (size 10). Yet when scouts came to Madame Rambert's in 1948 looking for chorus girls, Audrey was promptly selected for the stage musical High Button Shoes. In the chorus with her was another future star, Kay Kendall, who would later observe, "Audrey wasn't an outstanding dancer, but she had something".

OK, it's says in the article that she studied ballet in Arnhem but I incorrectly worded it in the lead section. It was an honest mistake, and you could have just changed it. Rossrs (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2009 (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!