Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 7

Lead image replacement
I suggest we try a new lead image. The proposed b/w one is crisper, a head shot, and 40x larger. We can solicit other opinions.

Support: Overall better portrait and more fitting for a lead. --Light show (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Weak Oppose -- Although I agree that this image is a whole lot better than the current one, I don't trust any image that you upload,. Where is the proof that the copyright was not renewed?  Cassianto Talk   07:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Support - I looked over the info on the picture page which says this image is in public domain. "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963" The editor Hohum originally uploaded the image. It looks like Light Show adapted or retouched it, but they did not do the initial upload. I do not see a copyright issue here. Pauciloquence (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence that the licence was not renewed? quote the licence text but be aware, anybody can adds a licence; it doesn't always mean that it's correct. Light show has a long history with copyright infringements and was previeosly sanctioned for it.   Cassianto Talk   10:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment While I think that a less grainy photograph would be preferable, I'd like to draw attention to an earlier discussion LS and I had on this subject. I'm curious about the 180 he seems to have done on the topic as the proposed infobox image is very similar to the one LS so vehemently opposed at the time, except for the fact that it's less grainy and in black-and-white. Also, while the image wasn't necessarily uploaded to Commons by LS —due to the fact that he is/has recently been under a lengthy ban for not respecting copyright laws and causing a lot of extra work for editors— it was he who found it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Not quite 180, more like 0. The previous lead image, which I also tried to improve on against your wishes, was kept in. --Light show (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * How does one prove the license has not been renewed? Is there a database somewhere that may be checked? Pauciloquence (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm by no means an expert, but yes there are, but you have to know what to search for. For example, the images I uploaded for the article with the help of Loeba and We hope are press images which were published in film magazines which are no longer under copyright. I first used Internet Archive to look through film magazines from the Fifties, and would then check for the title/publisher info from a database. If the magazine was no longer under copyright, I would then be able to use the image or a clearer/larger version of it. That's pretty much all I know about copyright though. It's best to ask from someone who is experienced in this. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * This is not the right forum for discussing copyright laws, which, BTW, is something that the U.S. has had for a 150 years, very unlike most of the world. Proof of PD status is relatively easy to find in the U.S., both for very old registrations and for ones since 1978. The rules are very clear. For pre-1989 material, text or photos, if it hasn't been legally registered, which only then gives the author a "right" to prevent others from copying, it's presumed to be PD. And rarely, if ever, have publicity photos been copyrighted in any case.
 * The "rights" given by registration are similar to the right to drive a car, after you apply for and receive a license; or the right to rent your house, if you have a deed; or the right to get credit for a college course, after you've enrolled. All of those, like copyright registrations, are in a searchable database. If there's no proof it's been registered, it's assumed and is evidence that it's not, and is in the public domain. Although attempts are continually made to claim copyright over things illegally. --Light show (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we would do well in deferring to what has to say about copyright regulations and law regarding the photo.  Of course, getting a solid determination about the copyright status of the photo would be a good start, too.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * MRG has deferred PD commons issues to be decided there. The image was posted, reviewed, and approved at Commons. You should take your concerns there. --Light show (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not the only one expressing concerns.  can, as a member of the community, speak up about this as she wishes, can she not?  If I'm not mistaken, she's one of the most knowledgeable in Wikipedia regarding copyright issues, correct?  I'd like to hear from her and see how she chooses to weigh in on this.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely the right forum to be discussing the copyright over this dubious image. The question has been raised and an answer should be established here.   Frankly, I wouldn't go within a five mile radius of any picture  uploaded so we're all right to be sceptical.   Cassianto Talk   23:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Because of what you just brought up (re: trusting images uploaded by Light show), you might be interested in this, : . -- WV ● ✉ ✓  23:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My point entirely, . Light show's ability to upload a problem-free image is second only to that of a one-legged man's ability to take part in an arse kicking competition.   Cassianto Talk   09:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Cassianto. Until copyright can be undeniably proven, we are better off to stay with what's there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  11:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at this point as the copyright status would need to be cleared up. Kierzek (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- not on copyright grounds, which I haven't investigated, but simply because I find the black-and-white shot too one-dimensional, Monroe in her rather vapid 'glamour' mode, as opposed to the colour shot that seems to show more personality as well as physical attractiveness (and I realise these things are very much in the eye of the beholder but FWIW that's what's in the eye of this beholder...) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The current image is poor quality and I find it odd-looking, so I support the replacement if the copyright can be sorted out. The proposed image is already in the article. SarahSV (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've asked on Commons:Village pump/Copyright whether anyone can advise. SarahSV (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that the image was added to the article after the FA process, so it wasn't included in the image review. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Weak support — Though I was the uploader of the current infobox image, I do think a less grainy image would be better. I'm not completely satisfied with the offered replacement as I think her face looks weirdly flat, but if it is determined to be PD, then by all means lets use it before we hopefully find a better one. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * , I don't mind File:Marilyn Monroe in 1952.jpg either. SarahSV (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the B/W image is preferable, magazine images tend to be a bit grainy unfortunately :( TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Tks for bring that up, SV, I find File:Marilyn Monroe in 1952.jpg preferable to the black-and-white shot as well, but my top vote is still with the current infobox image. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Light show wrote in July that the image "shows the margins with the publisher studio's name w/o a copyright notice". There's a postcard for sale here of another Marilyn Monroe image with the same words underneath: "20th Century-Fox Player. Made in U.S.A." That image says on the back "Publicity Photograph. Property of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. All rights reserved." So we would need to see the back of this image, not only the margins. That doesn't address the renewal issue, of course. SarahSV (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking at the back of the postcard, there's nothing to suggest that "all rights reserved" was added by the copyright holder of the image. SarahSV (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We hope, can you weigh in on this? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Hi everyone, I found two images of the current lead image which are both bigger in size and (maybe) higher in resolution than the original image. These two images found are in the same size, but there are minor differences, particular in the shadowing effect. You can try to compare and notice that there are some tiny shadowing differences around Monroe's eyes and the root of her nose if you look closer. The images: --Source 1 --Source 2 From: User:LoveFromBJM (talk) at 08:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wardrobe malfunction
On 25 March, I added a wikilink from the word "malfunctioning" (in reference to clothing) to the article Wardrobe malfunction, and re-added it on April 1. It was reverted both times, with no explanation other than a source being lacking. I did not change the content of the sentence, only added a wikilink. If the issue (the reason my edit was reverted) is that the content of the sentence is not adequately sourced, then someone should add "citation needed" or "not in citation given", and not remove the wikilink (as it appropriately links to an article describing the phenomenon being discussed). If the issue is that the phenomenon being discussed is not a wardrobe malfunction, then someone needs to explain what they think a wardrobe malfunction is (if not the apparent meaning of a malfunction of clothing resulting in unexpected exposure, which is what the sentence seems to be about). If the issue is that some editors object to adding wikilinks where the text being linked does not exactly match the name of the linked article, then you'd have to remove the wikilinks for "converted", "ectopic", and "detoxing". Is it one of the these issues, or something else? -- HLachman (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've no idea about the first revert, but my revert was a mistake, sorry about that! For some reason I thought you were claiming in the text that it was one of the earliest examples of wardrobe malfunction in pop culture (a claim which would definitely need a source to be back it up). Surprised to see that there's an article on wardrobe malfunctions though, seems a bit silly. But that's completely off-topic. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

OK, so I'll wait a few days and if nobody objects, I'll restore the wikilink. -- HLachman (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I waited a month and nobody objected, so I restored the wikilink. If there is any further issue, please discuss here rather than doing undiscussed reverts. -- HLachman (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

New info/photos?
It seems that new photos have surfaced of a pregnant MM in 1960, along with a claim of paternity by MM. Here is a link to the pics: http://www.vintag.es/2017/08/never-before-seen-pictures-that-show.html Here is the accompanying text: "Monroe had wanted a baby more than anything in the world, but that joy was denied her. She had three miscarriages prior to losing this baby, all of which played out in the public eye. The shots were taken by her friend Frieda Hull on July 8, 1960, outside Fox Studios in New York after Monroe had completed costume and hair tests for her film The Misfits, starring Clark Gable and Montgomery Clift.  The pregnancy was a secret and Monroe told close friend Frieda Hull that Yves Montand, her Let’s Make Love co-star was the father, not Arthur Miller, her husband at the time."

No mention of how the pregnancy ended.

I do not know the original source from which the vintag.es website got the info/photos, but it should be pretty easy to figure out especially given the info in the text, which is incredibly specific. The photos themselves do show a pregnant MMM, and the dates match up to the location. If it is confirmed, I would think that it would warrant an alteration of the section in the article discussing her pregnancies, as well as the relevant portion of the "Notes" section at the bottom. 199.176.233.63 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Or not. http://themarilynmonroecollection.com/marilyn-monroe-july-1960-pregnancy-true-example-fake-news/ --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe's poem book
I think the wikipedia article should include something about Marilyn's love of literature. She took literature and history night classes at UCLA. Her personal library included four hundred books. A book published in 2010, titled "Fragments" shows her never before seen letters, poems and and diaries.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/07/27/marilyn-monroe-fragments-poems/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/7649015/Marilyn-Monroes-diaries-show-her-intellectual-side.html https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fragments-Poems-Intimate-Notes-Letters/dp/0374158355/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1505757488&sr=8-1 Adaluzmora (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

?

 * http://imageshack.us/a/img23/5213/6gkk.jpg64.175.40.182 (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

severely addicted?
I quote: 'To alleviate her anxiety and chronic insomnia, she began to use barbiturates, amphetamines and alcohol, which also exacerbated her problems, although she did not become severely addicted until 1956.'

Apparently, Marilyn Monroe was severely addicted to barbituates, amphetamines, and alcohol, and this was the case by 1956. Or, as it were, not 'until' 1956. I think that the reference for this is Sarah Churchwell. She is, shall we say, known for her expertise in twentieth- and twenty-first-century fiction. Last I heard, she teaches American literature and culture at the University of East Anglia. For whatever that is worth. However, this is a slippery subject. Such intellectual giants as Norman Mailer, Miller and Joyce Carol Oates are criticised for having been complicit in the commodification and mystification of an icon. Miller, having been married to the woman for four years. So I think that given that Marilyn Monroe is the subject of some 600 books, we might keep in mind that Sarah Churchwell's book is not a straightforward biography. Long story short, I think the essence of the woman is perhaps not that she was severely addicted to barbituates, amphetamines, and alcohol. Anybody can see that Marilyn Monroe was ageless, at 36. Even if somebody were to say that she was severely addicted to drugs and alcohol in the last months of her life, this would be controversial. Sort of like saying that she was 'psychotic', maybe. There is reason to be truly fascinated by Monroe’s personal and domestic life, actually. I think it might be the consensus that she may have developed an addiction to barbituates. Yet I quibble, that there is a distinction between 'an addiction', and 'severely addicted', especially if we are talking about 1956. I mean, 'Some Like it Hot' was made in 1959. And really, what is this about amphetamines? I will paste a quote, nevermind the source it's just some lousy website, to illustrate the kind of thing that tests my patience:

'On Marilyn’s bedside table was a virtual pharmacopoeia of sedatives, soporifics, tranquilizers, opiates, “speed pills,” and sleeping pills. The vial containing the latter, a barbiturate known as Nembutal, was empty. In her last weeks to months, Marilyn was also consuming, if not abusing, a great deal of other barbiturates (amytal, sodium pentothal, seconal, phenobarbital), amphetamines (methamphetamine, Dexedrine, Benzedrine and dexamyl—a combination of barbiturates and amphetamines used for depression), opiates (morphine, codeine, Percodan), the sedative Librium, and alcohol (Champagne was a particular favorite, but she also imbibed a great deal of Sherry, vermouth and vodka).'

Now okay, take Librium, for example. I can allow that actually, it is true that there is a prescription order for Marilyn Monroe signed by Dr. Hyman Engelberg, written on his stationery, for Librium, an anxiety medication, dated June 8, 1962. The prescription indicates that the medication was for anxiety. However, I was asking what is this about amphetamines? Look, don't get me wrong, the point is what is the truth. The truth may not be very nice. We can easily google pictures of Marilyn Monroe's dead body lying next to her bedside table, though, and I don't think there are any amphetamines, and I am perfectly ignorant of any evidence whatsoever that Monroe ever in her life took any amphetamines. I cannot take Sarah Churchwell's word for it. Also, I do not gather the impression that actually, Marilyn Monroe was just this side of entering the looney bin, and a heavy drug user, in 1956. There is plenty of footage from her last uncompleted movie (1962), which shows her in full possession of her acting abilities during filming, and delightful, and sharp. Note that this is not a controversial point, check it out easily. I think one might tread lightly with conveying the impression that she was Truman Capote, in and out of drug rehabilitation clinics (never), or even taking drugs recreationally at all (technically, I'm thinking again this is a 'never'). DanLanglois (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the book Sarah Churchwell wrote. It's a study of the narratives about Monroe, and as such also synthesizes many of the important biographies. It's not at all controversial to state that Monroe suffered from serious addiction problems in her later years, that's the consensus amongst biographers. Remember that in the late 1950s and early 1960s there wasn't the kind of 24/7 paparazzi coverage we have today, so pretty much all footage you see of a star was strictly controlled and filtered by themselves and their studio. Therefore judging whether someone had an illness based on images / film footage is pretty silly. Not all drug users look like they're ready for "The Faces of Meth" gallery. As for the use of amphetamines, that was not at all unusual; if you use barbiturates/opiates, you will need something to give you energy/keep you awake when it's time to work. If you read about stars of this age, you'll notice that the combination of sedatives + amphetamines was pretty common. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Oh, you suggest that I read..let me just take a breath. I like to think I'm a reasonable guy. There are actual biographies of Marilyn Monroe to read. Look, the article says she was 'severely addicted to barbituates, amphetamines, and alcohol, and this was the case by 1956'. This is patently ludicrous, but in the first place we're not supposed to just be making this stuff up. I might be willing to take your word for it about what is 'the consensus among the biographers', but you haven't actually given a reference for this. Indeed, it seems to me that you have phrased your point rather abstractly and also informally. What biographers? What counts as consensus? Is this the unanimous view? Is it even the majority view? Of course it is neither. I feel similarly about your point that it is silly to be 'judging whether someone had an illness'. That point is stated so abstractly and informally that I am forced to guess what illness you might mean. And again, I can stipulate your point about whether 'Not all drug users look like they're ready for "The Faces of Meth" gallery.' But let's meditate on this a bit further, while examining such a gallery. Here are 10 shocking before and after pics of celebrities ravaged by drink and drugs:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/175173/10-shocking-before-and-after-pics-of-celebrities-ravaged-by-drink-and-drugs/

Now, by contrast, obviously, if you look at photographs of Marilyn Monroe, all of them without exception, from the last year of her life, it's not true that it appears as if her body had been ravaged by booze and drugs, taken with abandon. I mean, what, do you believe in miracles? Have you seen these pictures? I'm not asking about what some consensus among biographers might be, I'm saying look with your own eyes. But I take the consensus among biographers to be that Marilyn Monroe was known as the most beautiful woman in the world.

And then your point that 'As for the use of amphetamines, that was not at all unusual.' I don't have a strong opinion about what might or might not have been 'at all unusual', so what? If I am even willing to take your word for it, so what? Does it belong here because we share this opinion about what is not at all unusual? And so forth, about whether 'you will need something to give you energy/keep you awake etc.', and 'the combination of sedatives + amphetamines was pretty common.'

This is your point about amphetamines? But, I complained that I know of no evidence that Marilyn Monroe ever took any amphetamines. I mean, that's a bald challenge. And you reply by saying that amphetamines did in fact exist at that time, and it wasn't unusual for somebody to be taking them, and such. Well, but this is not the debate. I know that there is such a thing as amphetamines, and I know about Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland, for example. I know that Dr Max Jacobson had Kennedy hooked on amphetamine-based injections. But if Marilyn Monroe was taking amphetamines, then how do you know? Did somebody actually see her put these pills in her mouth? Where did she get them? Tijuana? At this point I anticipate that you might consider it worthwile to reply that in your best guess, she probably could have gotten them somewhere, maybe from one of her friends, who never spoke of this, and neither did she. That's fine, but we are not writing a fictional novel here, right? Arthur Miller was married to Marilyn Monroe for five years. He wrote a memoir, and life with her is treated of extensively in there. Did he mention that she took amphetamines? I might hope that you already know the answer to that question, so take it as a rhetorical question..

I'd say that what is or is not 'unusual' is something to consider, it's an interesting question, but I think it leads us afield. We might say on the Hemingway page, that he took this and that drugs, and that actually, among famous writers or such, it's not unusual. Similarly, about Edgar Allen Poe, or Aleister Crowley, or Kurt Cobain, or Philip K. Dick, or whatever, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Or Robert Downey Jr. It's not unusual. Maybe we consider Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and Sigmund Freud. Or Stephen King. But is this relevant? Is the article on Marilyn Monroe the place to be saying without any evidence that she was strung out on amphetamines that I suppose she must have obtained illicitly, not that you can even give an eyewitness account for this, or a receipt of payment for this, or heck, anything from the coroner's report when she died that she had anything like this in her system. And by the way, she had no alcohol in her system. In sum, there's plenty of evidence about Marilyn Monroe's life, there are many things that can be said about her that are documented facts. That she took amphetamines is not a documented fact.DanLanglois (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The statement is backed by Churchwell, Spoto and Banner. Go consult their works and perhaps even consult the pretty extensive bibliography further if you want to learn more about Monroe's substance abuse. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Fine, let's go consult Spoto, this is what I find, quoting Spoto: 'she never took amphetamines' Page 328.

You're welcome. - Thank you!

'..she began to use barbiturates, amphetamines and alcohol, which also exacerbated her problems, although she did not become severely addicted until 1956.' -- look, this isn't true, and as falsities go, this is also denigrating and crude. Alternatively, we could be noting that Marilyn Monroe was an avid collector of books, even an avid reader of books. The library of Marilyn Monroe contained over 400 books on a variety of subjects. Extensive library of classics, including books on religion, theater, literature, art, psychology and philosophy. So if you want to say 'until 1956', then maybe say that she didn't marry Arthur Miller until 1956 and leave amphetamines out of it. One could mention that Marilyn Monroe traveled in wide circles, meeting Khrushchev and Nabokov, Dinesen and Sitwell, Bellow and Sandburg, and people who actually knew her agreed about her sincerity and goodwill. Or again, we may consider that she was one of those fortunate few who seemed to get more attractive as she got older, and by 1960 the ordinarily pretty girl of the early part of her career had blossomed into a genuinely beautiful woman.

Fun fact: Marilyn Monroe was the first to wear skinny jeans, breaking the trend of "boyfriend jeans". This had started when she wore them into the ocean then came out to rest in the sun, leaving the jeans skin tight.

http://www.openculture.com/2014/10/the-430-books-in-marilyn-monroes-library.html DanLanglois (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You will notice that I've also cited Churchwell and Banner, both more recent and written by academics. Spoto, while for the most part reliable and useful, does use some dated information and sometimes downright questionable information (e.g. his theory about her death); his claim that she didn't do amphetamines is dated information. There's plenty in that book about barbiturates, opioids, alcohol etc, hence why he is cited in that footnote. You're fixating on one sentence and thinking that it colours the entire article, when there's plenty about for example Monroe's aspirations for her career and her intelligence. Wikipedia isn't a fan page, so this discussion is a pretty fruitless one. Out of interest though, why do you find amphetamines to be so much more unpleasant than barbiturates or opioids? Why fixate on amphetamines? For the record, amphetamines were usually prescribed by doctors during this time as well, they were for example popular as diet pills.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * Well, Susie ... since you seem to be a practitioner of "truth by innuendo" let me say this as a person who lived through that time and "abused" plenty of drugs (by your standards.) There were people who did ups, and there were people who did downs, and never the twain shall meet. If she was doing a lot of barbs it is very unlikely that she was also doing beans. Like Mr Langlois above, I find there is way too much of this "she was a drug abuser !" nonsense plastered over people who have been dead for fifty years. In the sixties and seventies we were all "drug abusers" by your standards.


 * It's your standards that are screwed up, not our lives. 116.231.75.71 (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Latin American and Mayflower roots
Is it notable her mother was born in Mexico and she is a descendant of John Alden according to "Ancestry"?

Omaha Dog Bell (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You would firstly need to find something better than a blog as a source. Wikipedia doesn't accept blog posts as reliable sources. Secondly, Alden must have hundreds of descendants. A very good source would be needed. As for the Mexico thing, I don't think it's notable, even if true. Do you have a reason why it would be? HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I recall, Gladys Monroe was indeed born in Mexico, while her parents briefly lived there. They moved to California when she was a baby though, so it's not really worth mentioning IMHO. She didn't have Mexican citizenship or really any connection to that country other than having been born there. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Too many images on the article
There should be less and more reliable images on her article, it is full of them, I already made my edition but I was told to start a discussion so, who supports?. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not support flyby deletion.....what images are you talking about....what are the suggestions for a change? Looks normal to me the amount and there placement.--Moxy (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Moxy & - more discussion please. And, also, I think the previous number of images was fine. Shearonink (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see any point in deleting any images either. What do you mean by 'reliable'?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Do not support removals; does not squeeze text and not overused in the article. Kierzek (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2018
The dates of her first marriage and birth of her children are wrong. Marilyn was born in 1926 how can she have children in 1917 and 1919, then divorce in 1921. At the age of fifteen, she married a man nine years her senior, John Newton Baker, and had two children by him, Robert (1917–1933) and Berniece (b. 1919). She filed for divorce in 1921, and Baker took the children with him to his native Kentucky. 2602:306:B8B0:10B0:341E:FB0F:1730:17B4 (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're confusing Monroe's mother's marriages and children with Monroe's... TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2018
Add the Name on the caption:

change

| caption         = Monroe in 1953

with

| caption         = Marilyn Monroe in 1953

Archimederoma (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌. The caption is clear already.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

What determines that a source (mental cruelty) is unreliable and what determines that Jim Dougherty's employment as an LAPD detective is trivial information?
When I first started editing on Wikipedia a long time ago, I was castigated for not adding sources to my posts. I subsequently learned how to add sources and citations, and I was immediately criticized for adding unreliable, questionable, and inappropriate sources to my edits. It seems that nothing I ever did was done right.

In the case of the Marilyn Monroe article, edits are heavily monitored because it is a featured article and also because Monroe is one of the most famous women of the twentieth century. I question some of the reverts that have been made to this article.

A number of publications and sources have said that Monroe divorced DiMaggio because he was jealous and verbally abusive to her. There can be little doubt that "mental cruelty" figured into the breakup. The shouting match at the Trans-Lux Theatre in September 1954 set the wheels in motion for the divorce. Who determines what constitutes a "reliable" source? An unreliable source might be telling the truth, and a reliable source might be giving false information. President Trump coined the term "fake news," and false information proliferates just about everywhere. If a specific post is deleted because the source is speculated to be unreliable, then technically just about every source is unreliable and should be deleted because it contains hearsay, conjecture, or speculation. Do you remember the 1948 headline, "Dewey Defeats Truman"? In the case of Monroe, Marilyn is the ONLY person who knows the exact truth of why she divorced DiMaggio.

When Monroe died in August 1962, her first husband Jim Dougherty was an LAPD detective. I see no reason why this is classified as "trivial information" that should not be mentioned in the article. There is obviously a difference of opinion on what constitutes trivial information and what constitutes appropriate information. No two people have the same mind, and there will always be differences of opinion. Most of you are too young to remember Jack Webb in the 1954 TV series "Dragnet." He played the role of Sergeant Joe Friday. He might have been right when he interviewed witnesses and said, "Just the facts, M'aam."Anthony22 (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As to your second query, you said it yourself in your edit summary - "That was a coincidence"; therefore, the information is trivial and not shown to be relevant. Especially in a Featured Article, there is no room for such garrulity in relation to the subject matter. Kierzek (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of very good guides to sources both here on Wikipedia and on other sites, easily found through Google. As your behaviour has been rude and disruptive every time I've seen you interact with anyone here, I'm really not going to spend any more of my time explaining to you why a badly written, unreferenced blog post from a dodgy website is not a reliable source. As regards to your second point, Kierzek put it well, I'd just like to add that you've added Dougherty's name in before, only then you also alluded to the tired old conspiracy theories. It's pretty clear why you're so hung up on having this trivial factoid included.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

What makes you think that accepted sources are reliable? You can bet every nickel you own that false information appears in sources and citations that have been accepted by Wikipedia. As I said before, "reliable" sources can be loaded with lies, hearsay and speculation that render the information useless. I have seen more false and contradictory information on Wikipedia than you can shake a stick at. I have followed links to articles that contradict what was said in the previous article. Information taken from Wikipedia could never be used in a court of law.

In reference to the conspiracy theories, Monroe is ALLEGED to have committed suicide. Some people think that it was an accident, others believe that she was murdered in order to cover up affairs between JFK and Bobby Kennedy. I have never alluded to any of those theories. As for the issue of rudeness, I have come across more rude people on this encyclopedia than you can shake a stick at, but I do not publicly accuse any specific individual of being rude, which is rude it itself. Rudeness is not a private affair; stupidity is not a private affair; ignorance is not a private affair. Some people think that they know everything, but in reality they know very little.Anthony22 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

"Information taken from Wikipedia could never be used in a court of law."

Too late. See Wikipedia as a court source for a number of cases where Wikipedia was used as a source in court cases. :
 * "Wikipedia cited by the High Court of England and Wales"
 * "Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate"
 * "British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark"
 * "Utah appellate court opinion relies on Wikipedia to establish that the meaning of a term in a contract may be ambiguous". Dimadick (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Courts usually rely on witness testimony, not testimony from encyclopedias. I have heard from numerous people that Wikipedia information cannot be verified and is unreliable. A judge who would render a decision based on information from Wikipedia might have a drinking problem.Anthony22 (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh my, this is getting very entertaining. Let me get the popcorn. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Anthony22 - Just adding walls of text or an excessive amount of intricate detail does not lead to a better article, see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Kierzek (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Singing in movies
Can someone definitively say that Marilyn Monroe did her own singing in movies? Every indication is that she did (and IMDb is very thorough in crediting dubbing), and yet, her singing is so good (e.g., "Bye, Bye Baby" in "Gentleman Prefer Blondes") that I'm surprised there isn't much discussion of it. BMJ-pdx (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * She most definitely did. It's discussed in virtually all biographies written of her, I suggest you look there. Remember that this Talk page is for discussion about the article, not its subject :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Thank you. And your point about the discussion is taken (although I could say that the article should contain something beyond her taking singing classes :) BMJ-pdx (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Semicolon war
An repetitious edit like this is inconceivable to me. Edit-warring over a semicolon to reistate more cumbersome and less smooth language? Smacks of article ownership and/or in any case of something which I cannot find within the parameters of good faith work. Makes Wikipedia work so much less agreeable, little non-constructive reprimands like that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand an edit-war over a semi-colon what are you doing on Wikipedia? (sarcasm implied and warred over). Yes, the sentence with an 'and' and without the semi-colon does seem smoother. But give me a comma and I'll show you the lines drawn in the sand (which point to the nearest dearest style guide). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "But give me a comma and I'll show you the lines drawn in the sand (which point to the nearest dearest style guide)." - could we have that in less poetic, more comprehensible language, pretty please? Like, is there a style guide which advocates the use of semicolons? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably. I was remembering the comma wars, which your section header reminded me of. If there is a semi-colon war I'd probably bivouac on the side of no semi-colon (have never liked them and don't use them). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

My revert
My edit summary was a result of fat fingers. I reverted to the last good, clean version. , keep in mind WP:RS. Thanks.  Cassianto Talk  18:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Appearently, you should be more careful when reverting because this revision you reverted to was definitely not a "good, clean version." Sebastian James what's the T? 19:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * When I want your advice I'll ask for it. Thanks.  Cassianto Talk  20:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You again removed Don Murray from the caption. Seems like a good addition to the descriptor. Since you question the lack of source that it is Don Murray you may not have noticed that the image is named File:Monroe and Murray argument in Bus Stop.jpg and that the descriptor on the photo page is "Photo of Marilyn Monroe and Don Murray in Bus Stop from September 3, 1956 issue of Film Bulletin". Can it be put back now? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No.  Cassianto Talk  05:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The name of a file and its descriptor doesn't have to unduly influence how the image is captioned in an article -- I think the current caption focusing on Monroe and the film's part in her career is better than cluttering it with further info. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @User:Cassianto, nobody here gets comments from advices only. If you don't like to be warned, don't be here. Sebastian James what's the T? 23:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be here at all if it wern't for idiots messing about with the article.  Cassianto Talk  05:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Confusion about Marilyn Monroe's date of death
For 56 years, Marilyn Monroe's date of death has been known as August 5, 1962. Now all of a sudden her date of death is classified as August 4, 1962. This seems very strange to me. I have heard of inscription errors on tombstones (Lou Gehrig), (Harry Cooper), or an unknown date of death (Yvette Vickers), but I find it very difficult to believe that Marilyn Monroe's day of death has been incorrectly published for more than half a century. Monroe could have died at 11:59 p.m on August 4 or 12:01 a.m. on August 5 Pacific Time. Perhaps her day of death should be shown as August 4 OR August 5. The incomparable Monroe still continues to fascinate and puzzle people.Anthony22 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no confusion, as the inquest found that Monroe died "between 8:30 and 10:30 p.m. on August 4". The 56 year mistake relies on the fact that her body was discovered around 3 a.m. on the 5th and some assumed that the discovery also set the date of death, which is what an inquest is for. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Wikipedia and other sources used her death certificate (which uses the time her body was found) as the day of her death until editor Randy Kryn changed it to 4th per the sources on the page (investigation reported that she died on the evening of August 4). This issue was previously discussed here. Sebastian James (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get this sorted tomorrow; however, I'm not sure whether the 8.30-10.30 estimate was in the inquest. Banner states that it was the estimate made when she was first examined, and doesn't contradict that later so I'm inclined to think it also made its way into the inquest.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Checked Leaming, Banner, Rollyson, Churchwell and Spoto; it appears that there is no mention of what's in the death certificate. Apparently, it is not known for certain when exactly she died, except the night between 4th and 5th. Could someone with access to Chicago Tribune check the August 18, 1962 article on the inquest? It's gone behind a paywall for me, but I think it could clarify this. I've viewed what is claimed to be a copy of the death certificate online, but due to tags can't decipher what it says for date of death. I'm inclined to think it's the 5th. Could others weigh in on this? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * The death certificate says 3 a.m. on the 5th, putting down the time that the body was found. Sounds like the follow up on the condition of her body is when the time was pinned down to the evening of the 4th. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Google and Britannica still incorrectly list her death date as August 5. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

43+ Homes and Handprints
Marilyn Monroe lived in at least 43 homes, in such places as Hollywood, Catalina Island, Las Vegas, New York. But she owned only one house, the Brentwood home she died in. Today, at the Grauman's Chinese Theatre, Marilyn Monroe's handprint in the concrete is the blackest/dirtiest because more people place their hands in her handprint than the handprint of any other star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.114.108.98 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Check please
When was this photo taken? Uzeditor (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The date on the image upload page tells us it was taken 12 April 1921, almost a hundred years ago. By that time Monroe had starred in over a dozen silent films and was rivaling Audrey Munson for pure pizzazz. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The file has been removed (the year on the image upload file was 1921) so I should clarify for informational purposes that my comment above was a joke. Except for the Audrey Munson part. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe's bisexuality deserves mention in her article
Marilyn Monroe reportedly had manly female lovers, yet her lesbian tendencies are not mentioned or discussed anywhere in her article. This is very confusing to me. If you Google this matter, you will see that Monroe had alleged sexual encounters with women such as Brigitte Bardot, Judy Garland, Betty Grable, Joan Crawford, Jane Russell, Marlene Deitrich, Barbara Stanwyck, and even Jackie Kennedy. The article alleges that Monroe was heterosexual because no mention is made of her many female celebrity sex partners.

Monroe's bisexuality and many female lovers deserve mention in her article. This information is not something that should be hidden or classified as taboo.Anthony22 (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt that it's a matter of taboos so much as reliability -- which sources allege these affairs, and which of those do more than report rumours? I ask out of genuine interest, as I've read several biographies of Monroe and most if not all of these names are a surprise to me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if the following source is reliable, but go to this link to read about Monroe's alleged female celebrity lovers:

https://www.therichest.com/world-entertainment/marilyn-monroe-15-female-lovers-you-never-knew-she-had-affairs-with/Anthony22 (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * We're told "According to the National Enquirer [blah blah]"; "According to Betty [where?], [blah blah]"; "According to reports [which? where?], [blah blah]"; et cetera. Why should an encyclopedia even start to take this stuff -- by the author of "25 Most Amazing Things Kim Kardashian's Rear Has Done", and from a website whose current top story is "Woof! 10 Most Expensive Dog Breeds, Ranked" -- at all seriously? Hoary (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Anthony you have been around long enough to know good secondary RS sources are needed (and what they look like), especially for a topic such as this. So no should not be added based on what has thus far been presented. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Who cares who she slept with?  Cassianto Talk  17:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Caring who she slept with is absolutely irrelevant to the topic. If Monroe was indeed bisexual, this information should be mentioned in her article. If any of her alleged female lovers are still living, they are the ones who can substantiate the truth about this matter. It boils down to the age-old question, "How do you know when you have the truth?" You can't use unreliable sources, you can't use hearsay, you can't speculate, you can't use second and third-hand information. I am inclined to believe that Monroe was bisexual, but I don't know where to find a "reliable" source.Anthony22 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Caring who she slept with is absolutely irrelevant to the topic." -- in your opinion. I couldn't care less if she was bisexual. It didn't affect her abilities as an actress and that's the main thing.  Cassianto Talk  19:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be any evidence in her lifetime or after her death. One of her female lovers would have talked by now. And Jackie Kennedy? Toss Bobby and Ethel in the mix and you'd have quite the movie, but not for an encyclopedic article. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Brigitte Bardot is one of Monroe's alleged lovers, and she is still living into her mid-eighties. Bardot might be able to verify that Monroe was bisexual. There is a lot of evidence of Monroe's lesbian love affairs on the Internet, but these sources are not suitable for an encyclopedia. The National Enquirer, Daily Mail, and other publications are questionable sources. If The New York Times had an article about this, it might be OK as a "reliable" source. The New York Times has a famous quote: "All the News That's Fit to Print." What that really means is, "All the News that We Want to Print and Want You to See."Anthony22 (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , do you have a proposal for or question about editing this Wikipedia article; and if so, what is it? -- Hoary (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There have been multiple reports that Marilyn Monroe had sexual encounters with some of the most famous women in the world. These reports have not been verified, but I am saying that the article should contain information that Monroe MAY HAVE HAD sexual liaisons with members of her own sex. This is interesting information that deserves mention in the article. Monroe was famous as a sex symbol, actress, model, and singer, but no mention is made of her bisexuality. Many other famous women have their bisexuality mentioned in Wikipedia articles. There is overwhelming evidence that Monroe was not as straight as a sword. I think that this information is significant and worthy of coverage in her article.Anthony22 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia article, not a repository for mere gossip and clickbait from junk websites. Unless, perhaps, the gossip and clickbait have been noted or discussed in sources that merit attention. (Have you tried Google Scholar?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

How do you determine whether a specific source does or does not merit attention? I concede that there is a lot of false information on the Internet, but MULTIPLE sources have said that Monroe was bisexual. Brigitte Bardot is one of the mentioned women who is still living. If the information about Monroe and Bardot is false, Bardot can sue somebody for a ton of money. A straight person should NEVER be accused of being homosexual. There is a lot of junk on the Internet, but it can be difficult to separate truth from fiction.Anthony22 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * How you can determine whether the three sources specifically mentioned so far do or don't merit attention: Daily Mail is "generally unreliable"; National Enquirer "considered generally unreliable"; therichest.com not a RS. Mere quantity of blather doesn't make the blather more credible; and I hope that you are not seriously suggesting that an allegation about somebody must be true if that person has not sued for libel. Please drop the stick, ; or, if you feel compelled to confect something from junk sources, please do so on some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

On a Talk Page, you can say whatever you deem is appropriate. The whole purpose of a Talk Page is to avoid mistakes in editing the article. You can certainly disagree with what someone says on a Talk page, but do not direct that person to another website. The Internet is full of junk, but it is OK to discuss junk and reliable? sources on the Talk Page. It's too bad that Marilyn is no longer with us; she could give us the truth of the matter.Anthony22 (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * At the top of this talk page,, you and I are told: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marilyn Monroe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Having the article cite sources already recognized as unreliable (as has been pointed out both generally and, in response to an earlier question of yours, specifically) would normally debase the article, not improve it. If your edits to articles adhere to Wikipedia policy, you are of course welcome to continue making them. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

If Marilyn Monroe did, in fact, have sexual liaisons with other world-famous women, it would be a tremendous improvement to the article if this information were mentioned. Sexual orientation is a major aspect of an individual's personal life. I'm not talking about gossip, hearsay, or speculation; it is VERY possible that Monroe went both ways.

Monroe had affairs with many famous men; this information is covered in the article. If Monroe also had affairs with many famous women, this information should also be mentioned. Do not equate fact with gossip, and do not necessarily eliminate gossip from articles. Monroe's affairs with JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Milton Berle, Charlie Chaplin, Jr., and Marlon Brando are also gossip, and this information is covered in the article.Anthony22 (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , I'm starting to wonder if you're intent on wasting other editors' time. You now say: Monroe's affairs with JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Milton Berle, Charlie Chaplin, Jr., and Marlon Brando are also gossip, and this information is covered in the article. Oh really? On JFK, in a footnote: "they sometimes had casual sexual encounters, there is no evidence that their relationship was serious" (sourced to three published books); on Brando: "she also dated actor Marlon Brando" (sourced to a book published by Bloomsbury); on RF Kennedy, Milton Berle, Charlie Chaplin, Jr.: nothing; these three people go unmentioned in the article. Or is there something wrong with the search-within-this-page function of my browser? -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Even better, I just found out Monroe was in fact murdered by the CIA because she knew that aliens exist! Or was it the Illuminati? Anyway, we can probably find a site saying that, so let's definitely put this content in the article. (yep, this is my attempt at sarcasm) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

The article in the Sun immediately mentions that Monroe's death was part of a "new crackpot conspiracy theory." This immediately brands the article as fiction. This scenario is reminiscent of Orson Welles' 1938 radio drama The War of the Worlds, in which hundreds of thousands of gullible people actually thought that we were being invaded by aliens from Mars. Getting back to Marilyn Monroe, she didn't get in on with aliens, but she DID get in on with both men AND women. I don't think that 20 Internet articles would falsely claim that Monroe had lesbian encounters.Anthony22 (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that you’re willing to believe so readily multiple Internet articles shows that you really shouldn’t be making additions to articles on here without some scrutiny. If that’s the kind of sources you want to rely on. Maybe we should just say that she faked her death and is hanging out with Elvis and Jim Morrison of the Doors. I’m sure I could find an Internet article that states that. Kierzek (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Now there's a musical act I'd pay to see. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Monroe could not have faked her death if she was wheeled out of her house in a body bag, but she might be hanging out with Elvis in heaven. Getting back to the issue of reliable sources, what makes you think that a source such as The New York Times or CNN is reliable? Who or what determines the reliability of a source? I refuse to believe that umpteen sources that state that Monroe was bisexual are all wrong. The evidence suggests that Monroe had female sex partners. Brigitte Bardot is at least one of those partners who is still living, and there could be a few more. If it could be proved that Monroe was in fact bisexual, this information should receive coverage in her article.Anthony22 (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This is silly. Please stop. This is a talk page for the article. Not the subject in general or vagueries concerning what constitutes RS. Enough.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bardot's page has no hint of same-sex affairs, and from the 'Relationship' section she seems straight. In any case, maybe this section's name should be changed (it declares likely fake news as fact) and should be archived. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I did the research for this article and none of the RS books written about Monroe talk about her having been a bisexual or even having had a casual fling with a woman. I vaguely recall that some may have briefly discussed some existing (but not contemporary) rumours (e.g. about Joan Crawford), but all biographers seemed to consider them so unconvincing and lacking any credible evidence as to not even bother seriously entertaining the possibility that there could be any truth to them. If ever some RS sources appear that demonstrate that Monroe was indeed likely bisexual, then of course that belongs in the article. However, given how 'analyzed-to-death' Monroe's life is, I seriously doubt any such new evidence is going to turn up.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

The following quote is from Lois W. Banner, who is a respected author: "Monroe “desired women, had affairs with them, and worried that she might be lesbian by nature.”

Click on the following link for more information:

https://www.queerty.com/marilyn-monroe-may-have-swung-both-ways-says-bio-20120724Anthony22 (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I clicked on it, . Having done so, I don't understand why you'd link to it rather than to this piece at The Guardian. Anyway, precisely what do you propose to do about it? -- Hoary (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Since Lois W. Banner is a reliable and respected author, It's OK to mention Monroe's bisexuality in her article, using Banner as the source. I'm sick and tired of wasting my time uploading edits that are reverted, so somebody else needs to upload the information. It is definitely appropriate to mention Marilyn Monroe's bisexuality in her article because numerous stories indicate that she went both ways and Banner is credible. FYI, I have a personal link to Donald Spoto, and he is a Monroe biographer..Anthony22 (talk)


 * So go ahead, write here just what you want added to the article. You're not the only person here who's sick and tired. -- Hoary (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting to get the Lois Banner book out of the library, will double check this. The thing is, when writing about a subject as contested as Monroe, it's important not to cherrypick. Where this bit about Banner's interpretation on Monroe as a bisexual should go in the article, unless she also names the women she had affairs with/times when these affairs happened, is the question. Ps. Anthony, we're equally sick and tired of reverting you and arguing with you on why your edits are rarely improvements. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I agree with TrueHeartSusie3. In addition, when adding something that is controversial or previously unknown to a GA or FA rated article (or biographical article, especially) this addition needs to be very well WP:RS cited and should be cross-checked with other RS sources, as well. This is not a blog or website or tabloid, here. Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Update
So, I finally got around to rechecking Lois Banner's Monroe biography, and yes indeed, she does allege that Monroe was bisexual. For example, she thinks that there is probably truth to the claim that Monroe and Natasha Lytess (first acting coach) were in fact lovers, Monroe was close to many 'known bisexual/lesbian' women in Hollywood, and states that in many instances, Monroe hinted in interviews to being attracted to women. Banner does mention that she is the only biographer so far who thinks there's truth to for example the rumour about Monroe & Lytess being more than friends and coworkers. Despite being in the minority with her interpretation of Monroe's sexuality, Banner is arguably one of the most credible Monroe biographers given her academic background.

In short, there's nothing that irrefutably proves that Monroe was bisexual, which of course is not surprising given how taboo anything outside heterosexuality was during her lifetime. My suggestion would be to include a mention in the section where Lytess is discussed. E.g. "She also began working with the studio's head drama coach, Natasha Lytess. Lytess would remain her acting coach and mentor until 1955, and according to biographer Lois Banner, the two were also most likely lovers." [+maybe footnote adding more info on the statements that make Banner think it is likely Monroe was bisexual and a mention that other biographers have not been convinced.] However, I would not add Monroe to any LGBTQ+ categories before we have other RS authors agreeing with Banner.

+ Here's the other 'academic' Monroe expert's (Sarah Churchwell) interpretation of Monroe's alleged bisexuality.

What do you think? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Ownership
TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) Your funny in suggesting my edits were anything but good faith, you "allowed" some. But insulting me in edit logs and being predatory by WP:owning a page while mocking my edits and using an informal name to address me when doing so is uncalled for. This is an article about a 36-year-old that gives middle names of people she spent months with; it is bloated. Jennablurrs 7575 (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Before this goes into accusations please remember good faith. And that the article is a feature article. So if major changes are made and questioned then friendly discussion from everyone would be making "assume good faith" mean something. I haven't read any of the changes, just chiming in. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This article went through GA and FA vetting. With that said, your edits Jenna have not been an improvement. I have to agree with TrueHeartSusie3. There are plenty of other articles that need attention. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies if you feel attacked, Jennablurrs7575, that was not my intention. However, I also suggest you look at your own edit summaries, from "Pick a continent." to "Removed from caption, MM sex appeal was dwelt on? Its WP:pufferey in caption. Lets get the fair to good rating? Editors edit, shall we?". As for calling you 'Jenna', I assumed that would be ok given that your name here is "Jennablurrs757" and the edit summary has a very limited number of characters to use. I'm often referred to as 'Susie', and others here are also often referred to with abbreviated names if their WP name is long or complicated.


 * Let me further explain my rationale for the reverts:


 * Starring to credited — you made a change that introduced a factual error. To star in something is different to simply being credited.
 * "He paid for Monroe's silicone jaw prosthesis"  — What prosthesis? It's not mentioned elsewhere in the text and isn't a widely known fact about Monroe. Therefore the previous or the current sentence structures are arguably better.
 * "nine years older" – How is this an improvement from "nine years her senior"?
 * "Monroe was not told about a sister she had until she was 12 and then met for the first time as an adult." The sister is already mentioned in the previous sentences, so this change makes it seem like there's another sister. 'Then met her for the first time as an adult' does not sound correct to me; if I'm wrong here, please correct me but it just does not seem like an improvement.
 * "but they soon separated some months later" – Why use 'soon' and 'some months later' in the same sentence?
 * 'early childhood' to 'earlier childhood'. We're talking about Monroe's life from her birth to seven years of age. According to Wikipedia's own article on childhood, early childhood ends around the age of 7. Given that the age of 11 is generally the onset of puberty in girls (again, acc. to the WP article on puberty), referring to Monroe's childhood beyond the age of 7 as her 'early childhood' does not seem correct.
 * Abbreviating years (eg 1927 -> '27) isn't generally done in WP. Densifying articles is generally welcomed, (and I am by no means suggesting there isn't any space for improvements in this sector when it comes to this article) but this is not the way to go about doing it.
 * "Grace McKee Goddard" – I'm under the impression that's her maiden name, not her middle name. It's used in biographies, hence the usage here. Same for "Ana Atchinson Lower". By assuming things about names without doing the research, you are introducing errors/OR. We can't shorten people's names even if there's logic to it, we have to go by the names given by our sources.
 * Removal of 'elderly' – completely unexplained. It's literally the reason why Monroe had to move out, Aunt Ana was old and had health issues resulting from it.
 * "emerged as a major sex symbol becoming one of Hollywood's most bankable performers." This makes sense in spoken language, if you pause between 'sex symbol' and 'becoming', but in a text it's clearly not correct.
 * Captions – it's completely ok for captions to be descriptive. That way the reader can glimpse the main content of the article from even just a cursory browse, and there's a reasoning for each photo choice. Every single caption represents what's stated in the accompanying text and has gone through a thorough FA review.
 * As for Niagara, to say that it 'dwelt on her sex appeal' is not puffery, please see the text. I can provide additional material to prove this point as well. The film (from plot to costumes and cinematography to publicity campaign to reviews) focuses on Monroe's sex appeal, and was controversial due to this reason at the time of its release.


 * Hope this clears things up! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Filling out of log reports where typos can and do occur than indeed, well really.And just copy past my name TrueHeartSusie3 (talk)its rather disingenuous while provoking another editor especially when you copy pasted to change my ok edits ( other than the stupid prosthesis) Spell check the bane of my existence plus you were up in my edits (check times) so it was a bit hard to correct anything or proof with hyperactivity like that and the accusation of bad faith edits of work and now my typing, oh the horror, but You Know the SpACE Is LIMtEd. But the rest you seem to want to dicker over, and now want to call me to task? I work on a 7" inch android, my space is 1 inch I hope this meets your approval before I hit publish, all due respect you are still coming off gangbusters trying to "put me in my place". You nominated this article, put a lot of work into it, prolly kept it safe, did you create it too? Jennablurrs 7575 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just explained why your edits were not 'ok edits'. I'm not calling you to task, I'm simply explaining why I've reverted your edits, given that you are accusing me of doing so out of 'ownership'. You were introducing multiple grammatically and factually wrong edits, deleting material etc., which I highly doubt was due to a spellcheck issue given your edit summaries, and even if it were, it is a.) your job to make sure you check your spellcheck isn't doing things it shouldn't, and b.) if it's a spellcheck issue, how is another editor supposed to know that? If you feel like you're being 'put in your place' when others point out that your edits aren't improvements, then I'm not sure this Wikipedia thing is going to work out.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * You threw my edit log out here with spelling errors, that's the only thing I claimed spellcheck effected. Now you say Wikipedia is not for me? I'm sorry your still sore over the initial claim of ownership, but your edit logs weren't as clearly reasoned as here. I take bad faith seriously, that was my problem, thanks for clearing things up, I got it now. Jennablurrs 7575 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason why I copy+pasted those two edit logs is to point out that your tone was definitely not neutral, but rather aggressive. I wasn't pointing out the spelling mistakes. I wasn't assuming 'bad faith', that's literally why I said "I want to assume good faith here", it's just when someone seems to willingly enforce quite clear mistakes with edit summaries that sound slightly aggressive, it's baffling. As for the ownership thing, it's a fairly serious accusation, hence clearly I needed to explain more in depth the rationale behind my reverts. Glad to hear things are now sorted! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Lead image
Is the current lead image (the one with white sweater) good enough for now? I think so but it could have been better. What should we do? Leave it as it is? Roif456 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, tks for discussing. I think the photo you found is good quality but I find the current one a somewhat more natural look that illustrates more of the person behind the image than the one you uploaded before, although of course that can be seen as very subjective. My preference FWIW would be to leave the current photo in the lead and replace File:Monroe 1953 publicity.jpg, of which I've never really been a fan, with the colour one you found. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ian Rose; the photo you chose is fantastic, but it's better to have a more "natural look" photo as the profile image. In principle, I wouldn't oppose replacing the current profile photo with a higher-quality one, though.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Thanks for the consensus, so I've found a higher resolution photo, but the quality is only slightly increased. I've replaced it with the higher resolution one, a few hours ago. Will be on a look just in case. Roif456 (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And please do replace the b&w profile shot in 'Legacy' with the Photoplay one, it is gorgeous and fantastic example of the "glamorous Marilyn"! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Done. Roif456 (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit summary of TrueHeartSusie3, I've contacted with the site owners and explained the issue, and they said that there was nothing preventing it from being used and that it was public domain. Sebastian James what's the T? 10:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, you need to provide some evidence that the image is no longer under copyright. Saying you've talked with site owners is most likely not enough.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Indeed. doctormacro.com just collects and publishes images - lots of very nice ones, but provenance details vary. From our point of view we'd really want the original author, date and place of first publication, details of whether that publication carried a copyright notice, and whether, as Susie says, copyright was renewed. Unless I'm missing something we don't seem to have enough of those details to make a proper judgement, so c:COM:PCP might come into play. I'd love to be wrong though - it's an outstanding image and it would be a shame if we can't make some use of it. -- Begoon 13:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The image in question was photographed by Sam Shaw for 1953 film How to Marry a Millionaire, and you can see the same dress in the film. Also, film publicity stills (as explained in this article) taken prior to 1989 were usually not copyrighted. Roif456 (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed that name in the "author" field, then it said "John Florea" for a day or two before it changed back. Sam Shaw took the iconic "billowing dress" picture, didn't he? Where does the author information come from? Unfortunately "usually not" does not equal "never", even if it can be definitively shown to be a "publicity still" so actual detailed evidence of provenance would be really useful. It would be wonderful if we could fix up the details beyond doubt. -- Begoon 14:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sam Shaw took the picture of her in white dress blowing from a ventilation for The Seven Year Itch. Roif456 (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So where does the information that he took this picture (and that it's an uncopyrighted publication of a "publicity still") come from? If we can add the source of those details to the file description it could help a lot. -- Begoon 15:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Issue of not notable name verbiage in Monroe's article
There seems to be a difference of opinion on what constitutes a "notable" name that deserves inclusion into Marilyn Monroe's article. "Kay Brown" was entered, reverted, re-entered a second time, reverted a second time, and recently re-entered a third time by me. I guess you didn't know that Kay Brown was a notable person who has a Wikipedia article.

My entry for Seymour Rabinowitz (not notable) was reverted because of verbiage (a profusion of words usually of little or obscure content). I'd like to know who determines whether a given proper name is notable or not notable. Does a person need a Wikipedia article to be considered "notable"? Many people who don't have individual Wikipedia entries are mentioned by name in the articles of other people. I know that Seymour Rabinowitz was not a household name from coast-to-coast, but that does not necessarily mean that he should not be mentioned in Monroe's article. To use a corollary, Monroe's personal physician, Dr. Hyman Engelberg, was not a household name and does not have a Wikipedia entry, yet he is identified in her article. This appears to be a double-standard. If Rabinowitz is not notable, then perhaps Engelberg is also not notable and should not be specifically identified in the article. His name could be replaced with "Monroe's personal physician".

I concede that I have made some disruptive edits (I didn't notice that "superfeminine" was part of quoted text until after I made the edit; I was going to revert it on my own but Kierzek beat me to it. It is also true that some editors have made disruptive reverts; everything works both ways.Anthony22 (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to removing Dr. Hyman Engelberg's name from the article; his name is mentioned because due to the number of conspiracy theories on Monroe's death, it's good to be quite specific. I am definitely opposed to adding the rabbi's name; this is not intended to be an A-Z of everything in Monroe's life, rather an overview of the main points. You knew you were under a ban to do any grammatical/stylistic changes, so trying to explain your previous edits away isn't going to do you any favours, nor is blaming others. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Anthony: There is no reason to add the name of someone such as "Seymour Rabinowitz", who is not notable on their own accord and really had no impact on the life of the subject of the article. Anyone could have married them, even a notary of the public. That is the reason for removal. These minor people added have to be looked at objectively, one at a time. Kierzek (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Movie poster of Jean Harlow is inappropriate in Marilyn Monroe's article
The article concerns Marilyn Monroe, not Jean Harlow. The Section "Screen persona and reception" contains a publicity photograph of Jean Harlow. This photo focuses (literally and figuratively) only on Jean Harlow and leaves Monroe out of the picture (pun intended). It's OK to mention Harlow in the article, but a photograph that pertains ONLY to Harlow is inappropriate in Monroe's article. This photograph should be removed from the article.Anthony22 (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But in this case it's not even a publicity photo of Harlow, it's a movie poster... Shearonink (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. It's a movie poster that publicizes Jean Harlow.Anthony22 (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Jean Harlow poster demonstrates what Monroe's star image was partly based on, it supports the text and makes it clear to the reader what we're talking about. I chose to use the poster because it is definitely PD, and showed Harlow presented in a similar way to Monroe. I'm not opposed to replacing it with relevant PD image of Monroe (there aren't any on Commons), but I also do think there's value in showing what Monroe's image was based on, i.e. she definitely was not the first famous platinum blonde movie star. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I'm with Susie on this. If the text makes a comparison then an image is reasonable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Susie on this as well, for her reasons stated. Kierzek (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020
Add in the section -- 1944–1949: Modeling and first film roles -- the miniature

EnricoMosca31 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. Do you mean you want to add this image? If so, where exactly? That section (indeed the whole article) already has a ton of pictures. I'm not sure how a photo of a museum exhibit really adds anything to this section.  Moreover, there may be copyright issues with this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 22:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Read the book the Assassination of Marilyn Monroe
She was murdered. She died at around 9.30 the evening before she was said to die. One of the Kennedy's visited her on the day she died. She was going to blab about the Kennedy clan and her relationship with the two Kennedy brothers. In the book, the author takes apart the accepted version. There was a massive cover up, people around Monroe lied their asses off. The week before she was in Lake Tahoe at the behest of Frank Sinatra. While she was there she was drugged and compromising pictures were taken of her by a Mafia hood. They thought this would stop Monroe talking. Somebody had other ideas. key people who were around Monroe on the day have all dramatically changed their stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.133.152.252 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Userbox Marilyn Monroe
If you like Marilyn Monroe, you can put this Userbox on your userpage like this: --Tangopaso --Tangopaso (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020
Her date of death is August 5, you have it listed as the 4th, that is not correct. Thanks! 70.106.141.238 (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * no source was provided, plus our sources say that August 5 was the day she was found dead having died August 4.-- Laun <u style="color:#00F">chba <u style="color:#00F">ller 00:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020
She died on August 5, not 4 216.223.201.230 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * . See the earlier discussion on this page. Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See the RfC above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: On what day did she die?
On what day do reliable sources say that Monroe died, Saturday August 4, 1962 or Sunday August 5? Please cite sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * The inquest legally ascertained that Monroe died during the evening of August 4. This was discussed previously here and at her article here (the article now states "Based on the advanced state of rigor mortis at the time her body was discovered, it was estimated that she had died between 8:30 and 10:30 p.m. on August 4"). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It is well documented that she died on August 4 and her body found on August 5. We have a separate article discussing her death - Death of Marilyn Monroe - The9Man  ( Talk ) 10:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe's masseur
Ralph Roberts' memoir manuscript, 26 pages (unread)←←Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Former Catholic
Please put Category:Converts to Judaism from Roman Catholicism. - 2600:1702:31B0:9CE0:5430:7225:74B8:67DE (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sundayclose (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Niagara pictures reverts
I tried to add File:Monroe in a towel in Niagara trailer 1.jpg to the section Marilyn Monroe and reverted it with doesnt add anything and not necessarily even free to use. I reverted it back in with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marilyn_Monroe&oldid=982653346 It is a public domain image illustrating "In some scenes, Monroe's body was covered only by a sheet or a towel, considered shocking by contemporary audiences." Undid revision 982650762 by TrueHeartSusie3 (talk)]. TrueHeartSusie3 reverted it again with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marilyn_Monroe&oldid=982653920 We cannot possibly feature every image that is somehow referenced in the text. That section already has four images. Please take this to the Talk page first]

There are two Niagara pictures in the article, both in the public domain. Both are illustrative of the text. The other pictures on the section are iconic or illustrate the text. So which pictures should stay? --Error (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The non-towel image from Niagara should stay. The towel image is of noticeably lower quality than the rest in that section, and it gives the section a crowded appearance, so it should be removed. The reader gets an illustration of the sex appeal idea in two ways - from the prose and from the existing Niagara image. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain non-towel image only, based on picture quality and WP:NOTGALLERY. We don't overload one section with images. And in this case public domain is irrelevant because there are sufficient available images. There is a mindset that pops up from time to time on Wikipedia that if an image is free it must be used. Sometimes a poorer quality image is necessary because no others are available; that's not the case here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

TrueHeartSusie3 was correct in maintaining original Niagara image that illustrates make-up that created the iconic Monroe look mentioned in text, although towel and sheets are referenced too, I think the reader can understand that text without the lesser quality image. Jennablurrs 7575 (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)