Talk:Marilyn Monroe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.211.225.195 (talk) at 13:50, 21 October 2011 (→‎First Marriage (submitted October 20, 2011)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WP1.0

Mental Illness of Marilyn Monroe

Why is there no section about Marilyn Monroe's mental illness. The woman was wacko, and locked up many times. Her mother was also crazy, and was there rest of her family. Can you write about this?--Jil492868 (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn's mother, Gladys, suffered from mental illness most of her life and was institutionalized several times during Marilyn's childhood. She stayed in an institution throughout Marilyn's life and died there in the 1980s. Her grandmother, Della Monroe, also suffered from mental illness, and a grandfather had committed suicide. All this served to haunt Marilyn throughout her life as she thought she too might succumb to the ravages of mental illness in later life. This thought would have certainly made her depression worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jil492868 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Kelly and Monroe

Marilyn's relationship with Kelly was fascinating and needs an expansion. All we have now is: "A film version of the Broadway musical, A Tree Grows In Brooklyn, and an unnamed World War I–themed musical co-starring Gene Kelly were also discussed, but the projects did not eventuate.[118]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneKellyusa483 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goddards

This section is all wrong. Who wrote this? Goddards were a very important part of her life for along time. Also she was very much in love with Dougherty when they married. Can we take this whole section out?

"Her time with the Goddards would once again prove to be short. At the end of 1942, Grace and Doc decided to relocate to Virginia, where Doc had received a lucrative job offer. It is unclear whether the Goddards did not or could not take Norma Jeane with them; nevertheless, Grace needed to find a home for her before they moved. An offer from a neighborhood family to adopt Norma Jeane was proposed but Gladys still would not allow it. With few options left, Grace approached Dougherty's mother and suggested that Jim marry her, so that she would not have to return to an orphanage or foster care. Dougherty was initially reluctant because Norma Jeane was only sixteen-years old, but he finally relented and married her in a ceremony arranged by Ana Lower, after graduating high school in June 1942. Monroe would state in her autobiography that she did not feel like a wife; she enjoyed playing with the neighborhood children until her husband would call her home. In 1943, with World War II raging, Dougherty enlisted in the Merchant Marine and was shipped out to the Pacific. Frightened that he might not come back alive, Norma Jeane begged him to give her a child before he left. Dougherty disagreed, feeling that she was too young to have a baby, but he promised that they would revisit the subject when he returned home. After he shipped out, Norma Jeane moved in with Dougherty's mother." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfdheu7362 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that they were for "a long time"? After Grace moved, she and Marilyn wrote each other only once in awhile, and she ended up committing suicide by swallowing pills right before she turned 60; Marilyn herself was found in a similar situation nine years later, but still in LA.
In most sources I've found online, she explains that she only got married because she didn't want to have to go back to the orphanage. Unfortunately, he took it the wrong way and even though he realized she was so much younger than him and that it was a "convenience marriage", he was heartbroken when she divorced him. In response, she would say that she felt depressed and bored in the marriage and I don't think that meant she was really romantically interested in him. Xmorningglory (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I agree, there are no sources. I'm removing what seems to be a lot of OR. Xmorningglory (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought I should point out that the post you're responding to is over 1 1/2 years old. Shearonink (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed almost two years old, but at least on my computer, it still shows this information, with a few lines modified. So what's the true story? It says only established users can edit. 75.4.236.46 (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes people don't see the date of a Talkpage post, that is all. Regarding the Goddards and assertions about their relationship with Miss Monroe? I have no idea. Register an account, find information in reliable sources and add those cited facts to the article. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mother

Can we have a new section about her mother?--Stuprus (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What would that contribute to this article. If her mother is notable then she should have her own page. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 14:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A whore?

The first line says:

Marilyn Monroe (June 1, 1926 - August 5, 1962) was an American actress, singer, model, and a whore.

Since when is being a whore (or a chaste woman) a relevant character trait? Căluşaru' (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism, and it's already been remedied. - Gyrofrog (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, sorry and thanks. I'm not in love with Marilyn Monroe, but I don't like people insulting other people. Căluşaru' (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added hyper-links

I hyper-linked some important words in the article introduction. These include typecasting (acting), suicide, Model (person), Singing, actress, critic, overdose. XXVII (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them perhaps needed to be linked, but common words, no. We have to be able to assume anyone reading has a basic understanding of common words and professions, such as "American", "singing", "actress" etc, and across the whole project there is a move to remove existing links for such words. It's explained at WP:OVERLINK and particularly at WP:LINK/OBVIOUSMEANING. I will partially revert your edit on that basis. Rossrs (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pornographic Movies?

Hearsay, I know, but I heard there were old 8mm reels of Marylin engaging in sexual acts - is this true? If so, should it be mentioned here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.16.10 (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous consensus has been to leave it out. Please read the previous (archived) discussions at Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 1#Sex tape section, Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 1#Porn film tittle-tattle, Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 2#Sex Tape, and Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 2#Sex film redux. This does not preclude the information from being included in the article, but given the previous sentiments, you would probably have to make a very good case for inclusion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Marilyn Mealy another alias of Monroe?

Luke: The way it was explained in the Google Talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY6Hk8_eiKs#t=2365 led me to believe it was another of Monroe's aliases. If so there may be an interesting story

Kurt Beyer, MIT Press as source:

Page 312, Grace Hopper and the Invention of the Information Age - Kurt Beyer, Published by MIT Press in 2009

Google Talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY6Hk8_eiKs#t=2365

--62.24.235.251 (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page 311 indicates Mealey was "a 19-year-old high school graduate from the Mayfair section of Philadelphia...." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something's Got To Give

It says in the paragraph as it stands now, that Dean Martin was faced with a lawsuit. It's the first time I read this, as until now i always heard in documentaries and bios that Martin had it in his contract he had a choice of co-star, and even director if I recall correctly, and he said it was either Monroe or no movie at all. Is it possible the quote is old and the Martin contract info surfaced later? I can't read the quote, but I remember Summer wrote a bio on Monroe and it's from like, late 80s? Dollvalley (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Summers book does not give much comment. In fact, "When Dean Martin refused to work with any other actress, they sued him too." is all it says. Summers's sourcing notes attributes various newspapers and publications such as Variety, Los Angeles Times etc to the material relating to Monroe's involvement with Something's Got to Give, but does not specify the exact source for the comment about Martin. All of the works cited are from July and August 1962; some dated after Monroe's death. It's not vital to the article and I don't see a problem with removing it. Probably not a bad idea to just get rid of it. I think it was added by me, quite some time ago, but I'm not sure. The copyright for Summers's book is 1985 BTW, you're quite right. Rossrs (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yank magazine image

If this was discussed in the past, please bear with me. I looked through the archives but found nothing. Why does the article use the black and white version of Image:MarilynMonroe-YANK1945.jpg instead of the color version? As far as I can tell, there is no legal restriction on either image. If the reason is that the latter version is digitally colorized and photography purists don't consider that artistically acceptable, I happen to disagree. I'd like to hear other opinions. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main image

For months this image from 'The Prince and the Showgirl' was the main image on the page, that is until it was replaced without any explanations with this one from 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes'. I have no idea why this image was replaced, it is a clearer shot of her face and there was really no reason to replace, especially with thate one. I reverted back to the original, and I hope it stays that way, that is unless a better image is found. Andrew0921 (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marilyn Monroe in The Prince and the Showgirl trailer cropped.jpg
Original
Replacement

And I say "distort" because the way somebody looks with their mouth open and their eyebrows raised in surprised expression which was captured in movement does not represent the way a person looks like when they are standing still and look directly at the camera. Andrew0921 (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a nice image, but it is a side view. I like all these images, but I think the main image should be head on so that people viewing the article for the first time know what the person looks like. The side view is okay, but the other two are head on, which is more representative. Andrew0921 (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image in infobox

A minor edit war has erupted about which image to place in the infobox:
Image 1 (top one on right). File:Marilyn Monroe in The Prince and the Showgirl trailer cropped.jpg
Image 2 (bottom one on right). File:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes Movie Trailer Screenshot (16).jpg


Wikipedia does not decide things by majority rule, but it might help in this case to get some opinions about which one editors prefer. Any and all opinions are welcome, even if you don't state a preference. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image 2 - I think both are decent images, but this one is the one that strikes me as a typical Marilyn shot. I don't agree with opinons that her mouth makes it look odd, or that it is distorted, or that it was in the article a long time (things can changes sometimes), but I respect editors' opinions who feel that way. Cresix (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image 1 Well I reverted back because it was the image which best shows her, without her face being caught in a strange expression from a screen shot. I like that image from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, but I think it should be used somewhere else in the article and not as the main image. The main image should be a clear shot of the face, like a head shot. Also the other image which somebody used from 'Some Like it Hot' had very high contrast which washed out her features like her nose. As I said, the main image should be clear.
I propose keeping the original image because: #1 It is in color #2 It is head on and without a distorting expression #3 It was used for months without any issues #4 It is a simple and relatively high quality image that clearly represents her #5 It was removed without being discussed. Andrew0921 (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image 2 - most definitely, much more clearer, lighter, and shows all of her features (although some say it doesn't). And I agree that her mouth doesn't make the image "distorted" or "odd." Dorothy Shaw98 (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image 1 looks good. More natural looking, less like a bug-eyed creature than Image 2, in which she looks like she just got a final warning notice from the IRS. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, Cresix - I did think it was a bit fuzzy, but I wanted to see what everyone's opinion was. Dorothy Shaw98 (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image 1 - I think it's important to consider where particular images are placed, and their purpose. In the infobox, the image should be mainly to show what the person looked like, so that if someone doesn't know what they looked like, they can get a basic identification. Obviously Monroe is well known but if it was a lesser known performer, an "in character" image may not perform the simple task of showing their appearance. For this reason, I think that a "neutral" or even "static" image serves the purpose well and a plain "head shot" such as the Showgirl image works better in the infobox than it probably would in the article body. In the article body, the image is used to illustrate text, so for example if the text is talking about Monroe as a comedic performer or even as a "dumb blonde" the Gentlemen image is a perfect choice. The wide eyes and open mouth perfectly fit that persona and in that context, it's a great image. The Some Like it Hot image is important for the article, simply because the film and the performance are often hailed as Monroe's greatest, but the image has it's flaws. We're lucky that there are enough free images of her that we can place them throughout the article to illustrate key points and create an overall impression of her. Rossrs (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image 1 - For all the reasons stated above - I don't know about communications from the IRS, Image 2 looks more like the Key Grip just exposed himself in front of her. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 13:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think we need to put it as the Gentlmen Prefer Blondes picture for two reasons, she looks a lot happier and is because shes beginning her career and has a great leading role and is getting successful where she was already a star and had changed a lot by the time she did The Princess and the Showgirl which wasn't as good as Gentlemen Prefer Blondes or as much of a symbol of Marilyn Monroe as Gentlemen Prefer Blondes was. It was much more important in her career and I like to see her making great movies and not mediocre ones. Also The Prince and the Showgirl one has been up FOREVER and why not have some change. I changed it in like June and now all of the sudden people decide they care 4 months later. It's odd to me why, if its so important to other people, why it took so long to react. Because it is important to me and we should put up the Gentlemen Prefer Blondes picture. And i do not get how this work. What constitutes a "consensus"? Does everybody have to agree? Because everyone doesnt agree right now and for some reason people think it's alright to put The Prince and the Showgirl picture up when we haven't agreed really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilynmonroepictures (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it a long time ago, nobody said anything, somebody changed it again, and i tried to change it back to what I had had the picture as for a LONG time and now everyone acts like I'm the one who changed the picture. I just put it back to what it was.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilynmonroepictures (talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 October 2010
The problem with your changing the image has nothing to do with how it was a long time ago; it's that there is an ongoing discussion here. Your change was reverted for that reason, and you were invited to participate here. That's standard operating procedure on Wikipedia. If you are 98.110.148.254 (talk · contribs), you also need to be aware that it is strictly forbidden to repeatedly revert an article with different usernames. Thanks for addressing the issue here. Cresix (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't repeatedly reverting an article with different usernames. I just made one. I fixed the picture when I didnt have a username and then, since you were dragging me into this whole ordeal, I thought it would be best that I make one. So I'm not trying to cheat the system or whatever you feel it is that I'm doing. And my point is not just that it was a long time ago. It's that nobody cared for such a long time. And now for no better reason than someone trying to start a fight so that they can win something everybody cares. I bet I could ask anybody I know what the standard operating procedure is for editing a photo on Wikipedia and over 99% of them would tell me that they had no idea. I'm sorry i thought a different picture was better than the one that was on there but i didn't know about that rule back then and obviously it didnt matter for about five months. So I dont know why you can't just let it go and next time I want to change the picture (I'd like to change Cary Grant's picture to a more youthful one) I will follow the correct procedure. And I'll spread the word to all my friends about the correct way to edit a wikipedia page so that nobody ever makes this mistake again. I don't know how i was supposed to know the correct procedure. And i dont know why it is right to keep it as The Prince and the Showgirl while we're discussing this since that's the one it was most recently changed to. The Gentlemen Prefer Blondes picture should stay up until this issue is resolved since that's the way it was and nobody had any right to change it just because somebody wasn't told the rules of Wikipedia 5 months ago. I care an awful, awful lot about Marilyn Monroe and I really would like her picture to be from that movie. I'm sorry i wasnt aware of the rules but please just let this one slide and I'll always follow procedure from now on since I'm aware of it. And if this whole thing is about you trying to catch somebody breaking the ill publicized rules of wikipedia(as you just said it was) then I honestly feel that you should rework your priorities. I have no idea about any of the rules of Wikipedia but I'm learning. I didnt even know how I was supposed to use this talk page for a long time which is why i wasn't communicating and i was just changing the picture back again and again. And I just figured out how to sign these messages. I'm honestly sorry that i broke the rules, it'll never happen again. But please, just let this go. Marilynmonroepictures (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is all very nice Marilynmonroepictures, but there are certain rules and conventions that one must follow when editing wikipedia. One of these rules is that when there is a dispute there should be a consensus in order to find a resolution which helps enhance the article and it make it acceptable for everybody, not just the personal tastes of one particular individual. I am sorry, but things such as this simply cannot "slide", and just because you personally feel that the current image must be changed does not mean that other people want it changed for the simple fact that it has been up for a while. The info box image should be chosen to enhance the article and to give a proper representation of it's subject, not because it is time for change. At the present time the current image is one of the best available on the commons, that is why it is there, not because it represents the subject at a particular time in their career as that is a personal point of view which violates wikipedia's neutral point of view [1]. I would also like to mention that wikipedia is not memorial site [2] and that this is an encyclopedic article, not a fan page. Andrew0921 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not violate rules about "sock puppetry". The "nutshell" of that page is: The general rule is one editor, one account. An IP number is not an account. Nobody (not even somebody who has an account) is obliged to log in in order to edit. (No, this does not mean that it is always OK to edit without logging in when you have an account. But that's a separate matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It's only sockpuppetry if an alternate account (or IP) is being used to evade the rules in some way. That doesn't appear to be the case here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's not sockpuppetry if there is no evasion of rules. Using a username and an anon IP to avoid 3RR is sockpuppetry, however. Marilynmonroepictures (talk · contribs) has admitted using the IP, and was approaching (if not surpassing) three reverts. My only concern was to inform Marilynmonroepictures about both 3RR and SP policies so that there would not be a policy violation or, if the reverts continued, it would be blockable. Perhaps my wording about sockpuppetry should have been more precise. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, 3RR would be one of those rules I alluded to. It's not like there's a "quota" of 3 reverts per user ID per day, it's the total by one person per day. In fact, a user can be blocked for edit-warring even at less than 3 reverts, if it's been persistent and disruptive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't read my message carefully. I KNOW that I am the same person as those numbers ok. I am NOT trying to cheat the system or whatever you think I'm doing. I just made this account, and before just recently i had no account. I'm sorry i didnt make an account the first second i went on Wikipedia. That was very clever detective work you did but i didnt make multiple usernames. I had no usernames and then I made ONE username. I am not trying to disguise myself or anything like that. All that happened was I edited without a username and then I felt that if you guys were gonna start this whole big deal with me, then it would be better if I made an account. So don't try to catch me in the act or whatever because I didn't do anything wrong. And the whole point of that rule is so that people don't make a bunch of usernames and try to trick people and use multiple identities and do bad things all over wikipedia. Which is clearly not my intention at all. You should take yourself outside of being a rule enforcing machine and actually think logically and rationally about what is going on. And you've just made it extremely clear that the only reason for this is to make sure that everybody's following the rules. I'm sorry i broke them but you really should care less about enforcing Wikipedia rules and more about...almost anything else. And whatever people think "enhances" the article will obviously always be personal preference so that whole bit you said about "this is not a fan page" makes absolutely no sense. Obviously it is my personal preference that the other picture be up. And obviously it isn't important to you for any reason besides enforcing obscure rules because nobody cared that there was a different picture for 5 months. Obviously it actually matters to me for more than winning a fight since I noticed you guys had changed it RIGHT AFTER you did it. It didn't take me five months because i actually care for better reasons than enforcing rules. And as far as "representing" Marilyn correctly. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes reflects her SO much better than the Prince and the Showgirl. It was the movie that made her a star and she gave an iconic performance that people always think of the second they hear the name Marilyn Monroe. Most people have never even HEARD of The Prince and the Showgirl. So besides you being extremely unfair and not making any sense and claiming that I am trying to cheat the system of Wikipedia, I have a very good objective argument and a good reason for changing her picture. It has to do with much more to do with what is the best picture for the info box than it does personal preference. I'm doing the best thing for Marilyn Monroe and representing her as accurately as she can be for people that visit her page. I am not "treating it like a fan page" or "a memorial". Her performance and her image that she had in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes represents her so much better and made her what she was. That performance made her a star and defined what she was to the public. The Prince and the Showgirl was a failure of a movie and was at one of the lowest points of her career. It does NOT represent her nearly as well as Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. And you might say that "it doesn't matter what the movie is it's all about the picture" but thats not true because shes not being herself in either picture. She's acting. So you have to choose a picture that people will associate with Marilyn Monroe because Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is what made her an icon so to represent her and all that she became you should have her playing Lorelei Lee which is a role that represents her and defines her SO much more than Elsie Marina. So stop telling me I'm breaking the rules since I obviously understand that you dont care about this issue for any other reason than that. And start having a legitimate discussion. Marilynmonroepictures (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, you didn't intend to deceive. (See my comment immediately above your latest, long message.) ¶ And a quick look in film encyclopedias confirms that The Prince and the Showgirl is a turkey, so you may have a point about that too. ¶ But please don't fling around accusations such as that others don't care about anything other than such-and-such. (Editing this encyclopedia, I often sense that I'm surrounded by idiots, but I find that saying this gets me nowhere, and that rather often some patience eventually reveals that at least some of these "idiots" aren't idiots at all but are simply people who are as impatient as I am but are approaching an issue from a different direction. Eventually I get on well with them.) ¶ Conciseness is a virtue, too. ¶ Now let's move on, OK? -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marilynmonroepictures,if you were to read the comments by other users you will see that other people and myself are saying that the image from The Prince and the Showgirl better represents her physical appearance than many of the other images in the commons. You said that "I really think we need to put it as the Gentlmen Prefer Blondes picture for two reasons, she looks a lot happier and is because shes beginning her career and has a great leading role and is getting successful where she was already a star and had changed a lot by the time she did The Princess and the Showgirl which wasn't as good as Gentlemen Prefer Blondes or as much of a symbol of Marilyn Monroe as Gentlemen Prefer Blondes was.", nobody here is talking about her movies, her looking happy, starting her career, having a leading role, this movie being more successful than that one, or the fact that you think Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is better than The Prince and the Showgirl, all of that has nothing to do with the clear representation of physical appearance. The infobox image should be mainly to show what the person looked like, so that if someone doesn't know what they looked like, they can get a basic identification, not because it shows them being happy at a particular stage in their career. Andrew0921 (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, since you brought up film success, one could argue that an image from Some Like it Hot would be more appropriate than an image from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes as it was arguably her most successful film and the one for which she won a Golden Globe. But again, all that is irrelevant as the issue at hand is not which film better represents her career or which film was more successful, the issue is having an image which is a clear physical representation of the person in the infobox. Andrew0921 (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "Most people have never even HEARD of The Prince and the Showgirl" but on the other hand, that may just be your opinion. Even so, if they haven't heard of this film, how wonderful that an encyclopedic entry such as this can educate readers about the existence of this film, which may not have stood the test of time, but which was a notable moment in her career. The Prince in the Showgirl is mentioned in the lead section as the only film made by Monroe as a producer, and for which she was BAFTA nominated. Perhaps the BAFTA nomination is evidence that her performance was well regarded even if the film was not, and I agree that the film is a turkey. Who cares? The point of the image is to show what she looked like. We have a limited number of free images and we have to choose which one is most suitable based on individual merit. In addition to your push for the Gentlemen Prefer Blondes image, I notice you also added the Asphalt Jungle image with a similar edit summary. That image is one of the least suitable of the few suitable options - it's a poor, black and white image, with Monroe's face comprising about 10% of the image, and her facial expression is close to a grimace - and yet you chose it ahead of a well balanced, clear, colour face shot - because you don't like the film? I don't like the film either. I like the other film much better. It doesn't matter. The main thing I'm getting from your comments is a failure to distinguish between the quality of the image and the quality of the film from which it was taken. As for your caring very much about Marilyn Monroe etc, what makes you think that your caring has more value than other editors caring about Marilyn Monroe, or her Wikipedia article, or Wikipedia in general or anything else you care to mention? Have enough good faith to assume that everyone who is here, is here because they care about something enough to comment, whether you agree or not. Rossrs (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. Marilyn's complaint would only hold water if this article were about Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and it included a frame from The Prince and the Showgirl. But it's not, it's about the actress. So the point is to produce a usable and fairly normal likeness. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that Image 1 is the better photo, given what is available. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im not trying to represent her career at all I'm trying to represent her and the general public perception of her. It's about more than physical appearance it's about the representing the person as a whole. Like if its all about physical appearance would a mugshot be best? Because that is all about identification which is what you say this is about. Marilyn Monroe's blank stares (such as the one in The Prince and the Showgirl picture) are just like anybody elses blank stares. They don't define her as a whole. And how can you say the Gentlemen Prefer Blondes doesn't represent her physically. It represents her so much better physically than "The Prince and the Showgirl". Anybody who thinks about "the Marilyn Monroe look" will almost always be thinking of the way she looked in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. That was her look. That was her persona. It has nothing to do with how good the movie is. It's based on the fact that, physically and charismatically, the Gentlemen Prefer Blones picture represents her image and her "physical appearance" that she was best known for (medium length blonde curly hair, bright red lipstick, etc.) and it has nothing to do with how good the movie is. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes defines her and her image no matter how good or bad the movie was. And it represents her "physically" a lot better than the Prince and the Showgirl. And nobody tell me that "thats just your opinion" because it really is a fact that she is much better physically and charismatically represented in the Gentlemen Prefer Blondes picture. That wide eyed exaggerated expression of her represents her "physically" extremely well. A blank stare could be anybody's blank stare. Marilynmonroepictures (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marilynmonroepictures, let us put aside for a moment the question of what is and isn't a mere opinion. Now, what is it that you want shown? You've said medium length blonde curly hair, bright red lipstick, etc., but what's the "etc." within that? (Please respond concisely.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anything that defines her main image as those things do. It could be her tight dresses or her seven year itch dress or her diamonds are a girls best friend dress or it could be an expression on her face. Just anything that describes the public's image of her. I wish there were better pictures to choose from and then we could resolve this a lot easier.Marilynmonroepictures (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her makeup is heavier in the Gentlemen Prefer Blondes picture and her features are more prominent which was definitely part of her look. Marilynmonroepictures (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting way out of hand, the majority consensus here thus far is that The Prince and the Showgirl is the best choice available from the commons. Marilynmonroepictures is just rambling about their personal preference at this point, and it is going too far. Please end or settle this already, this "no way/yes way" thing is beginning to look childish. Andrew0921 (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is image 1, and that's that. I was trying to figure out where redlink Marilyn was coming from on this, and that's done. We're good. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, consensus has been determined to be Image 1. Any additional discussion about this matter needs to go in a new section. Cresix (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I recommend it go into a new subpage by itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very glad the Prince and the Showgirl photo was used. The makeup is relatively natural and the lighting reveals a lot of detail...both of which give the visitor a good look at her actual bone structure. Codenamemary (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boxing Day secret marriage "rumours" - the real truth

Many edits about Marilyn marrying a man in a bow tie over the past 24 hours.

For those (correctly) doing the reverting and who may be unaware, it's not a "rumour". It's part of the storyline of this year's Doctor Who Christmas special "A Christmas Carol".

So, keep reverting. The fans will quieten down soon. But be aware that it's not exactly a rumour. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked two named accounts and the latest IP. Acroterion (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just requested some form of temporary protection until the Whovian hubbub hopefully dies down. Shearonink (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Ryaboy W. Ryaboy" reference a reliable source?

The reference of "Ryaboy W. Ryaboy I." (http://www.wid-m-2002.ru/Celebs/Marilyn-Monroe-and-Russian-in-Hollywood.html RUSSIAN LOVER Marilyn Monroe Or as the Volga Burlaks Hollywood is built) has been added to this article as a reference and has then been reverted a couple of times at this point (see one edit diff: here). Since the website is in Russian it is unclear to me if this website can be considered as a reliable source. I have also posted a query about this reference/website at Reliable Sources Noticeboard{Joseph Schenck Birthplace question) and at WikiProject Russa (Source used at Joseph Schenck article). This website's possible issues need to be discussed here before the information is added back into the article again. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was added to the External links section. It would be one thing if it had been cited (inline) as a source, but it wasn't. This being the English Wikipedia, I don't see how such an external link serves any purpose in this article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At one point in the edit history the book/website was also listed within the References. Shearonink (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the problems I cited in the revert, for verifiability reasons, English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources to non-English ones; except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. Kierzek (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncredited extra work - IMDb as a source?

The reason that IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source is that its content mostly consists of reader-submitted information (per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites), there are also known copyright and vandalism issues as stated here. The only exceptions I'm aware of is information that comes directly from the WGA/Writers Guild and the DGA/Directors' Guild. In the case of these various uncredited extra bits that Miss Monroe reportedly did I am not aware of corroboration of these assertions from an independent reliable source...if that information exists in some other source other than IMDb there would be much less of an issue. Also, if she's not listed as a member of the cast in the credits either then the film itself cannot be used as a source.
For instance, in the case of her appearance in The Shocking Miss Pilgrim, I found this mention online at [6]:

"MM in the role of an extra in her very first movie, she played telephone operator. She is like many extra's not uncredited in this movie. I've seen the movie, but I can't find MM in the 'Telephone Operator' scene. Nonetheless she is in it according to www.imdb.com."

So, IMDb is used as a source and yet this writer states they couldn't find her in that particular scene. The only possible proof I have found is a black & while still of Miss Monroe I found here: http://www.allstarpics.net/pictures/0657533/the-shocking-miss-pilgrim-pics.html, *but* using that picture from an unvetted website might constitute original research. Shearonink (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not entirely "reader-submitted"; that's why I said it may "otherwise" be considered an unreliable source, but for cast lists it is acceptable, because cast lists on IMDb are not user-submitted (as is, for example, trivia; even trivia items submitted by readers are not posted until reviewed by IMDb staff); cast lists are confirmed from the film itself or from those with some authority related to the film before they are added. IMDb is not "forbidden" in it's entirety on Wikipedia. Most film articles on Wikipedia do not use any source for cast lists; many of them were taken directly from IMDb. In any event, Downtownstar (talk · contribs) removed the films with the edit summary "her contribution to these films is under dispute". Please provide some details about who, besides Downtownstar, disputes that she was in the films. Cresix (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not state IMDb was entirely reader submitted, but would like to know your source for stating that 'for cast lists it is acceptable'. I also have no dispute with anyone about her alleged appearance in various movies, I only care what reliable sources have to say about her film career. I know that mistakes are in the IMDb listings, in my experience, credits in movies can be and are reader-submitted. The only time that information on IMDb is beyond reproach is when the information comes directly from the WGA and the DGA. One instance I remember of an IMDb problem is when I was at a seminar where a film director said 'I have no idea who this person is' (when they were referring to an actor's claimed credit in a movie this man had directed).
As an aside, I did find a reference at History.Com (which I would consider a reliable source) in a Marilyn Monroe birthdate mention here that states "After a bit part in 1947’s The Shocking Miss Pilgrim..." The issue for me is not the mention of these extra or bit part (and uncredited) appearances it is *if* the information can be verified in a reliable source. Shearonink (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, there is no policy stating that IMDb cast lists are not acceptable. Try to add an incorrect cast member to IMDb; it won't work. There is a link to "Edit", but that's simply to submit a suggested edit for review by IMDb staff. I even tried to correct a mistake in some biographical information at IMDb. When I simply submitted the suggested change, nothing happened -- for weeks. When I sumbitted the suggested change with reliable source to back up my claim, it was changed within days. There is some editorial control at IMDb, just not certain parts of it (notably trivia). And editorial control (barring any other reason that challenges reliability) is the basis for determining that a source is reliable. I'm fine with removing the films from MM's filmography if someone can provided substantive evidence that her appearance in those films is disputed. So far I haven't seen much, if anything. In fact, with your identication of a source that states she appeared in one of the films, the evidence seems to indicate that including at least that film in her filmography is not a problem. Cresix (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that Miss Monroe might have done uncredited work in various movies that can possible be reliably-sourced, but in my opinion and experience IMDb should not be regarded as the final word on credits. I think the information should not be included unless it can be also soured from another reference. (And I know this might seem like a small matter, but I would still like to know (since IMDb is generally regarded as a problematic source) if there is a guideline that states 'for cast lists it is acceptable'. Shearonink (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a small matter; sourcing is important. But so is a complete article. Is there a statement on Wikipedia that IMDb should never be used ("avoid" is not the same as "never")? If so, I'll respect that. But it seems a shame to remove legitimate information in this legendary person's article without something more substantial to suggest that the information is incorrect. Is there another source for cast lists used more widely on Wikipedia? Apart from no source, IMDb certainly seems to be one of the most widely used here, if not the most widely used. And I personally don't know of any better source for cast information. If there is one, please let me know. Cresix (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has any one considered that she had Reactive Attachment Disorder?

my daughter has it because of her mother being mentally ill and no one wanted her. She showed most of the same symptoms my daughter has. any thoughts? Jessica Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.213.224.36 (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! While that's an interesting topic, article talk pages are not a forum and are meant for discussing improvements to the article. Reading WP:FORUM may give you some better ideas of where to ask this. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Personality Disorder

according to http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/27/the-science-of-empathy Kittybrewster ☎ 16:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A well-known borderline was Marilyn Monroe": I prefer to see evidence from appropriately trained mental health practitioners and documented with scientifically-validated information. Interesting material for speculation, but a long way from diagnostic. Cresix (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even though Baron-Cohen is a professional(Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at Cambridge, PhD in Psychology, etc.), blandly stating in a newspaper column such a serious statement (that someone had borderline personality disorder) without sources to back up that statement changes it into an armchair diagnosis for a dead celebrity's mental status and does not seem to be reliable and verifiable. It might be more appropriate to mention that 'the woman known as Marilyn Monroe was psychologically troubled. Some experts assert that she had borderline personality disorder (refs), some state that she (etc., with refs)". Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dress Size

What dress size was Marilyn? Does anyone know? 23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.180.181 (talk)

Is this relevant to improving the article? And BTW, new sections go at the bottom of the talk page. Cresix (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some Like It Hot - Not listening is wrong

Its says that she refused to take direcion from Billy Wilder where actually, the cast states 'she always listened to Billy Wilder and everyone on how to act..' - Some Like It |Hot special features (2001)

Would this please be able to be corrected? - Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvluv224 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Middle name?

The article does not go into depth. Is her middle name supposed to be Jeane, or was the first name two names (Norma Jeane)? (I do know some girls that have two names and not just one, but when they write it, it looks like a middle name: ex. Mary Ann). 75.5.8.142 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, Jeane was her middle name, but it would appear that she used both her first and middle name (I have read both her and Dougherty's books, and most people call her Norma Jeane; only once or twice is she ever credited as just Norma). So the answer would have to be both: her middle name is Jeane, and she used both her first and middle name. ★Dasani★ 20:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mortenson

At the risk of being pedantic, in what meaningful sense was she born Norma Jeane Morteson? Can children be automatically born with a name, independent of what name their parents give them? I am aware that this was her mother's legal surname at the time. PatGallacher (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Children are named based on information provided by the mother (and father, if available). As the article explains, the mother initially gave the child's surname as Mortensen and then changed the child's surname to Baker. Keep in mind that record-keeping was not necessarily as rigid and meticulous as it might be now. And nobody knew she was going to become famous and be subject to this kind of scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birthmark

I had thought the birthmark was covered over or exposed as she saw fit. Now I understand there was no birthmark. Was anyone before her famous for emphasizing a real or imagined birthmark? It seems worth a mention as it was something she played up in film and still pictures. (fotoguzzi)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.160.69 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the beauty mark was part of her image and it could be considered a point of interest... Elizabeth Taylor, Anne Francis, Joan Collins, Jane Russell in terms of movie-stars who are of Monroe's era or before all had moles or 'beauty marks', there also might be stage actresses but that is a harder term to do a search for. Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

marilynmonroefamily.com

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

marilynmonroefamily.com is NOT a fan site in the simple use of the word. It is hosted by the cousins of Marilyn. She is my 2nd cousin once removed. My grandmother is Gladys's cousin and Marilyn's 1st cousin once removed. Della Mae Hogan, Dora Hogan, and William Marion Hogan are siblings. William Marion Hogan is my great-grandfather. We are currently documenting Marilyn's (and our) family history for public viewing. All supporting documentation will posted at marilynmonroefamily.com as we continue updates. Please browse the site so you understand its context and importance concerning Marilyn's family history. Please do not remove www.marilynmonroefamily.com. Thanks, jasonekennedy@yahoo.com (www.facebook.com/jasonedwardkennedy) Jasonekennedy (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if this site in the future does come up with documented information from reliable sources that sheds new light on Miss Monroe's life, then perhaps it could possibly be added in the External links section. Until then, I think it does not belong in the External links section since the site does not provide a unique contribution to the article. Also Wikipedia is not a collection of links, links are often pruned from articles when the External links section becomes too unwieldy (which has happened on some other high-profile articles like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. (FYI for anyone following this discussion, a second cousin once removed relationship indicates that the above poster's parent & Miss Monroe share a set of great-grandparents in common.) --Shearonink (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Links that are added to promote a site by the site operator or its affiliates should not be added. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. Before inserting the link ask yourself if this link provides a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article? If not, it shouldn't be linked. We should open this up for discussion however - I didn't remove the link originally, so I'm just weighing in based on this talk page request.--Yankees76 Talk 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, ALL of the EXTERNAL LINKS at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe are ADVERTISEMENT supported (see the list below). Therefore, you cannot reject www.marilynmonroefamily.com on those grounds. Please base your argument on content and context. It appears moderators are off-handedly rejecting www.marilynmonroefamily.com based on face value rather than doing any due diligence. Please take the time to do your due diligence. I'll be adding more documentation as we go along. I wish to gain the support of the Wikipedia team members and moderators in publically announcing Marilyn's family history to the world. For some reason, Marilyn's family lineage has been tucked away in a dark corner. But, there are many living cousins on William Marion Hogan's side who have kept silent for far too long. Everyone has something to say about Marilyn, except Marilyn relatives...why is that??!! I am here to change that. Please work with me and take the time to do your due diligence. Thanks, Jason Kennedy Jasonekennedy (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EXTERNAL LINKS at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe): 

1)Internet Movie Database-   http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000054/    (ADVERTISEMENT SUPPORTED)
2)TCM Movie Database- http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/person/134087%7C106569/Marilyn-Monroe/   (ADVERTISEMENT SUPPORTED)
3)  Allrovi-   http://www.allrovi.com/name/p50065 (ADVERTISEMENT SUPPORTED)
4)WorldCat catalog- http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n79-55651 (ADVERTISEMENT SUPPORTED)
5) "LIFE"-  http://www.life.com/gallery/27452  (ADVERTISEMENT SUPPORTED)
6) http://books.google.com/books?id=eUkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA68&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=twopage&q&f=false (ADVERTISEMENT SUPPORTED)
7) http://altscreen.com/06/27/2011/marilyn-monroe-retrospective-at-bamcinematek/ (ADVERTISEMENT SUPPORTED)
I think you misunderstand - those websites didn't add themselves to the page to get more traffic or to gain some sort of legitimacy or endorsement by Wikipedia by having a link. They were added by non-affiliated third party members to this article because they're sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues or their amount of detail (such as movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks).
Per WP:EL any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article should not be linked. Meaning your site might be able to be used as a reliable source for encyclopedic content to integrate into this article and improve it, but probably shouldn't be linked on it's own - since it's a blog, personal web page and/or a fansite that is not written by a recognized authority. Hope that clarifies. Obviously others will weigh in, but at this point I can't see how this site differs from hundreds of fansites already out there, other than the loose family tie in. I mean I have the same last name as a famous politician - if created a website about him, would that entitle me to link my website from his Wikipedia page? Probably not. --Yankees76 Talk 21:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I understand perfectly well. Firstly, can you prove that they were "added" by "non-affiliated third party members" (and what does it matter anyway)? If you believe my claim, then that makes you a "non-affiliated third party member" who can then a approve the website: http//www.marilynmonroefamily.com . Secondly, the "EXTERNAL LINKS" ARE advertisement driven. I therefore rest my case on that issue. But again, you are not addressing the issue. What you call a "loose association" just hasn't been fully implemented as of yet. And you are attacking the messenger rather than the message. The key term here is "due diligence". Are you doing it? That is all that I am asking. Yes, the burden of proof is on me. However, instead of out-rightly rejecting something...please take the time to investigate. This is supposed to be an open forum where the evidence is fully weighed. I am sensing that this is not the case. A more mature response would be to let the evidence build and then we can make a decision as to the authenticy of the claim. Please do not get your feelings hurt by my statements. I am only making my point. Respectfully, Jason Kennedy Jasonekennedy (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No hurt feelings. I'd probably feel the same way if I wanted to put my site on here and had the link removed. You're not the first person who has struggled with our External Links guidelines when wanting to add their own site, and you won't be the last. And yes, I am a "non-affiliated third party member" who could add your link (even though I wouldn't for reasons outlined above) - and it would probably be pulled down by another editor or administrator just as fast as it was when you posted it. As for the current group of links - "advertisement driven" has nothing to do with these sites. It's not banner ads on the site that determine if they should be linked or not from here. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Yes, sites with excessive ads are usually not allowed, but they're also usually not allowed for other reasons. These sites - IMDB and LIFE in particular are linked from numerous movie industry pages on Wikipedia and are seen as reliable sources for having valuable or copyrighted content - details like Film credits etc., It's the same way every professional hockey player article has a link to Hockeydb.com. My point was Wikipedia itself is not the place to advertise or drive traffic to your site by linking to it. To me it seems like if we add your link you believe it will somehow legitimize your website, when in fact it should be the other way around. The material on your site needs to be able to add to what is already in this article.
BTW please re-read my post above - in particular the part that says they're sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues or their amount of detail (such as movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks).
I guess my question to you is - what material does your site offer that can't be incorporated into this article so as to justify a link? Is it the pictures of her non notable distant relatives? The blank "News" page? The YouTube video? I'm not trying to be belligerent - but with all due respect, the site has no content and promises of content is still not conent. Let's be rational here. Reverse roles for a moment and you'll see why two other people have already removed the page.--Yankees76 Talk 23:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So wait a minute, you initially state, "Links that are added to promote a site by the site operator or its affiliates should not be added. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links". And now you state, " As for the current group of links - "advertisement driven" has nothing to do with these sites (EXTERNAL SITES). It's not banner ads on the site that determine if they should be linked or not from here." So what is it?! You state one thing then claim another in just a couple of paragraphs! Then you revert back to your initial claim by stating, "My point was Wikipedia itself is not the place to advertise or drive traffic to your site by linking to it". Well no kidding! It's not a surprise to anyone that the proposed website SHOULD add something of value to the topic! But then you continue by stating what you think I believe, "you believe it will somehow legitimize your website". I NEVER stated that! And I am beginning to NOT appreciate this conversation with you! What I did state, is that instead of rejecting a proposed website offhandedly and at face-value, perform due diligence! That is exactly what I stated! You then continue your assault by being critical of the site content, not even acknowledging that the proposed site is in its initial launch (content is still being added). You go on to talk about that only verified reliable sources are acceptable, but haven't even taken the time to find out what verifiable resources I am going to provide. In other words, all you have done is chastized me and treated me with disrespect! And yes, I saw what you wrote about "who cares about distant relatives" before you deleted it! My grandmother IS Gladys's cousin! And she is still alive at 84 years old! I don't know who you are, but what you should have done was acknowledge the website at face-value and agreed to place it on hold until its importance could becomes further investigated. You have wasted my time with a bunch of petty, bad-tempered quarreling and you have NOT represented Wikipedia with professionalism! www.facebook.com/jasonedwardkennedy Jasonekennedy (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think our discussion is done. I've explained the situation for you with language that any rational person can understand; linked to the pertinent guidelines and even done due diligence by reviewing your website and it's content. Yet it's obvious you're missing the point entirely (as indicated by your puzzling first 3 sentences above, where you fail to grasp the concept of what advertising on Wikipedia is). And now instead of proposing intelligent and rational reasons why we should link your site you've resorted to strawman arguments, picking apart my attempts to explain the rationale why I don't think your site should not be added and now even personal attacks, none of which advance your position or increase the chances of your site being linked! Why would any other editor want to side with you now if this is how you act when you're challenged to show us why your site should be linked? You beg for us to perform due diligence and then get offended when it's pointed out your site as it sits now has nothing to offer! Please refer to WP:ELNO as was instructed by the first editor who removed your link. Better yet familiarize yourself with our External Links policy before you continue. Thanks and have a nice day. --Yankees76 Talk 12:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And please provide a diff that backs up your accusation "And yes, I saw what you wrote about "who cares about distant relatives" before you deleted it!".
I don't take accusations of content that I never wrote (or wrote and then "deleted") lightly. If you're going to make false accusations in an attempt to defame my character, I'd like to see the evidence. Since Wikipedia tracks all changes to the site, you simply need to go to the History tab at the top of this talk page [7] and provide the diff.
Wait, since you're new to the site, I'll save you the trouble and do it for you. Is it this one?[8]? Nope, don't see it there. Okay what about this one?[9]. No, not in that edit either. Hmmm. This one? [10]. Not that one either!
So tell me. Considering I only made these three edits on this talk page before today, where did I write "who cares about distant relatives"? Oh wait, it's not there because it's just a figment of your overactive imagination. And you're talking about "professionalism" and "petty, bad-tempered quarreling"? Good one. --Yankees76 Talk 13:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already demonstrated that YOU are not even clear on the "rules" that you claim to know. You changed your story and can't even admit it! Adding links to "strawman" definitions doesn't support your argument, it only makes you appear desperate! Stating that you did due diligence when in fact, you initially and offhandedly rejected my site without any hesitation. You only ACTED when I made the point for you to act, and then you only performed again, a cursory inquiry only. AND furthermore, you can't even help yourself! You conclude your statement by stating "Oh wait, it's not there because it's just a figment of your overactive imagination". That is exactly the same attitude you carried when I initially proposed my site! AND it is the same sort of statement that you deleted on the previous conversation (yes, you did and I don't know where it went...you've been here for 5 years...you tell me)!

So let me get this straight. I made a "statement" but you don't know where it went? I just provided you links to all the statements I made on this page and a whole history of this talk page. The statement is not there. As I said - show me a diff. Wikipedia has a pretty easy-to-see history of everything posted here. It should be easy for you to find it if it existed outside of your imagination. Here's the Complete Diff and Link guide to help you [11] - just remember it won't help you find things I wrote that you're just making up.
And what you've demonstrated is not my lack of understanding of the guidelines, but your lack of comprehension. You've simply turned around your own obtuseness to try to make it look like I don't know what I'm talking about. Your whole campaign here has not been to help promote the merits of your site, but instead has been a campaign to make those who oppose the addition of a link to your site appear to be aggressors or idiots for not performing "due diligence", while expecting us to evaluate a site not based on current content, no, but instead based on content that could be added in the future; while expecting us to agree to place it "on hold until its importance could becomes further investigated". Anything else you'd like? Maybe a mention in the opening paragraph? What else can we concede to in order for you to "publically announce Marilyn's family history to the world?"
Even your tone on other editors talk pages asking them to not remove your link is confrontational - instead of asking for help, you demand your link not be removed - while leaving your facebook link as if it's some sort of authoritative signature. Then you have the gall to challenge the other links that are currently on the page and have been placed there by people who actually contribute to the article - writing them off as "Advertisements". And after it's demonstrated as to why they're not ads or spam links, you attack the person who has taken the time to educate you. Why? Because you can't comprehend how IMDB with thousands of pages of movie credits can be linked, while your own site with practically zero content useful to the creation and/or promotion of this article to a featured article isn't? Or were you going to pick a fight with any editor who opposed your agenda? You ask me to work with you and "take the time to do your due diligence" but you can't be bothered to take the time read and follow our own external links policy? Because if you had - this whole back and forth would have been done in 2 posts.

Documented statements YOU made along the same line: 1) ...loose family tie in. I mean I have the same last name as a famous politician - if created a website about him, would that entitle me to link my website from his Wikipedia page? Probably not.

2)Is it the pictures of her non notable distant relatives?

Non-notable. Two words that are commonly used around Wikipedia when determining if an individual should have their own Wikipedia biography. It's not derogatory. Try spending a little time on the site - you might learn a thing or two that could help you avoid asinine arguments like this. And making statements along the same line and actually making the statements are completely different.

You could have professionally ended this conversation by politely stating that you would place a hold on the site until further and future evaluation. Instead, you have been on the defensive. And please do point out ONE time I personally attacked you!

Accusations that are not supported by proof are personal attacks - WP:NPA#WHATIS and per WP:TALKNO - "be precise in quoting others". Since you quoted me - where did I say "who cares about distant relatives"?
And you could have respected the opinions of the three editors that removed your link instead of turning this into a giant argument over the merits of links that have been on the Marilyn Monroe article and other actor and celebrity articles for years. You could have rationally illustrated why your site deserved a link, and as instructed presented detail to support your claims.[12] If you spent half the energy you've used on attempting to discredit me and pick apart my own posts on actually providing something to support your claim, you might have something useful instead of a body of work on Wikipedia that consists of link spamming and arguing with people who actually know how the site works.

To further support my site: I bet you didn't know that Marilyn's Hogan relatives were with Daniel Boone! And yes, documented with reliable historical sources. OR that Marilyn had a Great + Uncle who was involved with Kentucky politics....and more....No, you haven't take the time to investigate anything...have you! All this ranting has been totally unnecessary...

Then add that information to the article citing a reliable source. Just because we didn't know this fact doesn't mean your site gets a link. Again, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article should not be linked. Please re-read WP:ELNO again. Use your knowledge and info to add content, not external links.
I'm finished with this. As noted before, per WP:ELNO, the link should not be added. Until proof is provided that this is a site owned or maintained by a recognized authority, or the person wishing to add the site can demonstrate that the site does not mislead the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research and provides a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article, then no, the site should not be linked.--Yankees76 Talk 19:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link should not be re-added at this time. It does not add any info. of weight to the article. If the website changes in the future then it can be re-considered at that time, herein. Kierzek (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remind all parties posting on this talkpage of WP:NPA and WP:NOTAFORUM. This talkpage is a place to post our thoughts about improving the article and discussing edits (not editors). Also, per my previous post earlier today, I do concur with Kierzek.Shearonink (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally a rational response...Thanks, I'll add more content for later evaluation. Jasonekennedy (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still carrying on? Don't worry...I'm done, I already made my point! Jasonekennedy (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, a month and a half later the site remains unupdated since August 21, and is being used as a soapbox to encourage people to boycott Marilyn Monroe products from Marylin Monroe LLC, Authentic Brands Group, and CMG Worldwide. WP:COI. My rationale behind removing links to this site from Wikipedia stands. --Yankees76 Talk 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is even more interesting is that are still commenting on this...furthermore, your statement is completely false, the site has been updated with much more documents... and that is exactly why we continue to grow...But I know you would rather play games than take the time to verify anything yourself. But you are right about one thing...we are not happy with Anna Strasberg. And if you have a problem with that, then you can ask Marilyn if she was happy about that! Have a nice day... JKennedy— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.130.208 (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, what is important for you to understand is that after talking to most of the relatives on the Hogan side... everyone agree's Marilyn fame is being abused...therefore as relatives, we have a right to speak up about what is going on....Maybe you would feel the same way if Marilyn was your cousin.... JKennedy— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.130.208 (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Wikipedia's job to take sides in disputes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press or a forum for advertising and promoting yourself or your ideas. And why wouldn't I follow up? Since your primary argument for inclusion of the link to your site was that it was only a "proposed" site and we needed to do our "due diligence", one would expect a follow up lest we be accused further of not doing due diligence. So the questions remain: Does the site now provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article? Has the site since been updated with documented information from reliable sources that sheds new light on Miss Monroe's life? From what I can tell now, no. It's primary reason to exist appears to be to lead a boycott of Marilyn Monroe products - which is an incompatibility with the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. Now do your own due diligence and give WP:COI a read. Have a nice day! --Yankees76 Talk 17:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees76, I previously had already agreed that since content was lacking on my site that I would NOT resubmit my request until I developed it further. And since then, I did NOT come back on here begging for your permission to list my site. Yet, you decided to chime in again, and talk about "removing links to this site from Wikipedia stands". Were any links posted on Wikipedia? NO! Did I resubmit my request to link my site? NO! Furthermore, I am not in the business of letting your "requirements" dictate what I do with my site. In fact, after adding much more content in the form of public and personal documents, I had decided NOT to worry about Wikipedia. That is why you did NOT see me back on here again! Your statements do NOT demonstrate any due diligence on your part...but what it does demonstrate is a continuation of your earlier personal attacks on my claims. And REMEMBER, before you rattle on again, I DID NOT RESUBMIT MY SITE! Therefore, mindlessly reciting Wikipedia rules and verbalizing your opinions are POINTLESS and simply argumentative...bye! Jasonekennedy (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since marilynmonroefamily.com is a fan site it wouldn't be accepted under WP:EL as an official external link, and since the owner or publisher of site is not a recognized expert on the subject of this article and the site does not contain anything like a unique Filmography or something similar that couldn't be added to the article it would also fail WP:EL. And since its' not a reliable source to be used a reference in this article this whole discussion is rather pointless. I'm surprised this conversation has lasted this long. I'm closing this section to avoid any further personal attacks from single purpose accounts. --Quartet 14:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Marilyn monroe statue in Chicago.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Marilyn monroe statue in Chicago.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) 17:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 129.116.127.193, 3 October 2011

There are references to sexual assault that Norma Jeane endured while living with Grace and Doc Goddard; however, the newest biography on Marilyn (by J. Randy Taraborrelli) claims there is no proof to this story. Which leads me to the greater issue, these sources are old and outdated. Taraborrelli's work is the most recent and has acquired interviews from others who had previously not spoken out. Please consider cleaning up this section as your information is speculation based on old source material.

You also completely gloss over the suspicious activity around her death. In Marilyn's Last Words, there is sufficient evidence to show that her death was more like a homicide than suicide.

129.116.127.193 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per the Edit Request template:

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
Why not register for an account, source the information you want to add and do it yourself? On semi-protected articles, anyone can edit them after they become an auto-confirmed editor - which is an easy process that occurs after 10 edits & 4 days after registration. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SC04765 Marilyn Monroe in Chicago.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SC04765 Marilyn Monroe in Chicago.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • 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.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Marriage (submitted October 20, 2011)

This storyline leaves off with Jim joining the Merchant Marines. The next talk of her romances is when she began dating Joe DiMaggio. Nothing of their divorce or the events leading up to it is mentioned. Unless its somewhere out of order that I am just not seeing, this should be corrected if any information is known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.225.195 (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is merely protected from vandalism from unregistered users. Why don't you register an account, find information in reliable sources and then add cited facts about Monroe's marital states to the article? Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have one, fully aware of how it works, not necessary to log in just to make a suggestion on a discussion board, as its not an actual edit. Don't know what the topic of vandalism has to do with pointing out that her first divorce was omitted from the storyline. Hope if anyone finds the correct information that it will be updated Thanks :)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marilyn_Monroe&oldid=456678299"