Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Body Type

I remember hearing somewhere that Marilyn Monroe was a size 12. Today, that's a plus size model. She is such an icon for beauty that I'd love to see a reference to how much the idealized body type has changed since her time. Today, she would be laughed out of the casting director's office for being too fat. I don't want to add anything because I can't verify this, but perhaps there is someone more familiar with Marilyn trivia who can substantiate this fact? Vanessa 65.38.40.224 (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that there are a few things that need to be taken into consideration: A. Sizes have changed DRASTICALLY in the past 50-60 years and B. Women's lives & lifestyles have changed as well to where their bodies have changed. On the first theme I mention, a size 12 back in the 40's & 50's is closer to a size 8 or a size 6 of today. Sometimes even a 4 of today will be close to a 12 of back then! On the average, a size 12 dress from the 40's & 50's has a 25 inch waist. One just has to look at Marilyn Monroe's measurements throughout the years which were anywhere from (depending on the sourse) 35 to 38 bust, 22 to 25 waist & 34 to 37 hips. If you go to a vintage shop searching for a 40's dress and you wear a 6 of today, you may find yourself fitting into a 12 of then. So at the vintage shop a young woman who is a 6 of today and trys on the 12 of the 1940's and it may fit ok, but the shoulders may be a bit snug. Why? Now, on to the lives of women. A woman of today who grew up in the 70's & 80's also grew up being much more athletic than a girl in the 30's & 40's. Women of now may have been in soccer teams as girls, where encouraged to be play sports, they may have done aerobics in the 80's and they go to the gym now. Women during the time Norma Jeane was growing up were not as active. This makes the young women of today to have slimmer hips & thighs, but they also may have broader shoulders. I hope this makes sense. Crcam (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Their is a rumor on Snopes.com that Marilyn wore a size 16 dress. The rumor comes up as mutiple truth vales, and the article lists her weighing between 118-140 pounds.The article says the same things about the type of dress sizes changing over time. Boop-oop-a-doop.

She's hardly chubby, even - at 5'5 and weighing 54kg, she's got a BMI of 19.5, which on some scales makes her underweight and some the very low end of normal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.112.111 (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dress sizes in the United States were regraded a few years ago. A 1950s size 12 would equate to somewhere around a 21st century size 6, so she wasn't quite as elephantine as some younger folks seem to think 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Quotes about Monroe section

The section which contains quotes about Monroe has a final entry with the song "Candle in the Wind". Should the song be in a different and possibly new section, perhaps a trivia or pop culture section? Or has a trivia section been tried on this article already and been removed? The song appears out of place with the quotes about Monroe, but should be included somewhere because of its impact on her posthumous popularity. --Monnai (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Albert Einstine

I heard that MM read and was fascinated by "Theory of Relativity", and wrote Albert a letter or two. She also read a lot of books. I would opinion those facts (with reference) should be added to indicate she was no "Dumb Blond", of course her actual intelligence may not be known exactly. She was also rather adept (not great) piano player (neither items are in the article I could find, but are in documentaries about her)--Flightsoffancy (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MY dear, many people were "fascinated" by the theory of relativity; they still are. We don't know how many books she read, nor does it matter very much. I also don't think anyone is confusing her "dumb blonde" ROLES with her private persona. We don't know whether she was "dumb" or not, nor should it matter in this article.) Her piano was more of a fantasy (of a "cultured" home and life) than anything else; the fact that she was given one as a child is hardly worth mentioning here.

And - it's Einstein. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.37.105 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Marilyn's Death

There are different voices that said that her death was caused by various identity such as Suicide and Murder, personally, in my opinion, I think that Eunice (Marilyn's housekeeper) was in a plot with the Mafia, or else, why would Eunice be cleaning the laundry when the police arrive, she should be waiting but not doing the chores (for who? Since Marilyn's dead), and on the other hand, Marilyn was engaged in a project, how could she possible die before ending the project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianwagstaff (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many quotes

I'd recommend thinning out the "Quotes" section, preferably removing it altogether. This information is already well-covered at Wikiquote. Here on Wikipedia, what would be better would be picking a couple of the really famous quotes, and putting them in context as to how they became famous, and what impact that they had on society. --Elonka 03:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend more than merely thinning them. I think quotations serve a useful purpose if used within the article with a context that furthers understanding of the topic. A stand alone list offers no context. I don't see a difference between a stand alone, unexplained list of random quotations and the various forms of "trivia" lists. I agree with Wikipedia:Quotations, and although it is an essay, I think it represents a point of view that is consistent with other policies. Wikiquote is the right place to make lists of quotations. It was built for exactly that purpose. Rossrs (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Major concerns about the lead section

I have some concerns about the way the lead section has been set out, and I have rewritten it in the spirit of being bold. I realize that my changes are far from perfect and far from complete. I also realize that this article means a lot to many people, and I expect that some people will disagree with me, but I hope that this might encourage some discussion. The changes I have made are based on the following:

1. The lead sentence seems to be trying to list Monroe's every achievement, and by trying to put everything in one place, becomes difficult to read. Try reading it out loud. She was an actress, singer etc but she became (mainly after her death) a cultural icon etc. It would be easier to read, plus it could be given a clearer explanation if these points were seperated. The way it reads, it could be assumed that she rose to mythical proportions even during her lifetime, which is not exactly the case.

2. "Hollywood icon, cultural icon, fashion icon, pop icon" - there may be truth in these labels, but they are difficult to quantify. They sell Monroe short, in my opinion, simply because there is no attempt to explain what is meant, and as such her impact is reduced to a series of repetitive labels. They link to articles that don't necessarily add to our understanding of how Monroe fits into these categories. Also, despite the fact that some are sourced, it doesn't avoid the NPOV issue. For example, just because Anne Shulock writes for The Student Life that Monroe was a fashion icon, does not make it so, and using this as a cite does not mean that it complies with NPOV. She has been acknowledged or referred to or described as a fashion icon, and writing it this way would be far more accurate. Wikipedia should not be bestowing titles such as "fashion icon" on anyone, unless it is absolute fact. It's not absolute fact - it's someone's opinion, so we should be careful to write it this way.

3. Some of the wording is too strong and seems to oversell Monroe. There is a tone of desperation in our efforts to have readers take her seriously. Looking at featured articles for other actors, there is no such attempt to enlarge their status. For example saying that she is "critically acclaimed" is an oversell - all successful actors receive critical acclaim at some point in their careers, and all, including Monroe, receive negative comments. We seem to be pushing so hard for readers to respect Monroe as an actor, that we've added "critically acclaimed", along with 3 sources. We haven't mentioned any of the critics who thought she couldn't act or who commented negatively on her performances. All actors with any kind of career credibility have positive and negative things said about them. It's redundant to push either point too strongly. In the article there is plenty of room for critical commentary, which should in the interests of NPOV allow the negative comments to be also made. It's not appropriate in the lead. "Golden Globe winning" - same thing. It's not the most important thing about Monroe, and yet it is the very first thing mentioned. It can be still be included in the lead as part of her career chronology, and given the respect it is due. Simply, Monroe's achievements speak for themselves and we should allow them to do so.

4. Monroe was first and foremost an actress and a film star, and a very successful one at that. Very little is said about her acting career.

5. The lead is not written chronologically. For example, she achieved much of her stature after her death, but this is discussed in the early and mid sections of the lead, and then her death is the last thing mentioned. In Monroe's case, her story definitely does not end with her death, so the sequence could be changed. eg. Starts career, establishes career, achieves results, has problems, dies, becomes iconic figure.

6. The most important aspects of her death, for coverage in the lead, should be the known circumstances and the controversy/conspiracy theories. The lead is too specific. It is written in such a way, that murder is suggested more strongly as a possibility and there is no mention at all of the possibility that it could have been accidental. This should be simpified and made more neutral. The details, controversy and theories are very important, but could be better covered in the article, and the individual opinions could be given there also. In the lead it's not appropriate to mention the opinions of Tony Curtis or Shelley Winters. The fact that they knew Monroe gives them no greater insight into the circumstances of her death. They are not even the people who knew her best. It seems opportunistic - finding two people who knew Monroe at some point in her career, and use them to support the view she was murdered. It pushes the murder point too strongly. Other people believe just as strongly that she took an accidental overdose, and others believe she committed suicide. Their opinion is not given - and rightly so. The lead does not allow for a review of all opinions, and therefore should not express any. The body of the article is the best place for this. Furthermore, the lead is meant to be a summary of the article that follows. Shelley Winters is not mentioned again in the article, but her opinion is so important it belongs in the lead? Tony Curtis, same question. The only other mention of Curtis is his co-starring role in Some Like it Hot.

7. Cites are not really needed in the lead. Assuming that the lead is a summary of the article, and assuming that the article is well referenced, to add the references to the lead can be considered redundant. However, this is a question of taste.

I will be bold and change the lead to reflect the changes that I think are required, but of course with the understanding that this is not a done deal. I'd welcome any opinions. Rossrs (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an enormous improvement, presented with a deserved but unusual depth of explanation and an undeserved degree of humility.

I think it's too long. Time permitting, I'd shorten it; it doesn't, so I won't.

In at least one way, I'd differ with Rossrs, who writes above: For example, just because Anne Shulock writes for The Student Life that Monroe was a fashion icon, does not make it so. So far so good, but I'd go further: that people say that this or that person was or is a "fashion icon", "cultural icon" or similar, does not give meaning to such terms, which I find almost empty. (If it means somebody whose look was imitated by others, then my limited knowledge of fashion suggests that the claim is implausible.)

We don't disagree on this point, and in fact, it's the emptiness of the wording as you mentioned in a previous comment that got me thinking in the first place. "Fashion icon" is an empty label, and it can be easily used, but that does not prove that any thought or understanding has gone into its use. (I'm not referring to Wikipedia here, but to the magazines and websites that use the term without any meaning, and which we therefore follow without question. ) To me it seems like a lazy way of saying that she had some impact on fashion and that people copied her or emulated her, but without offering anything to back up the claim. Rossrs (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not unreasonable to say that, decades after her death, Monroe is a celeb; her name, face, voice and various other stylized attributes being well known by great numbers of people who have never seen her movies. Further, there are grounds for saying that a concentration on what she actually did shows a studied ignorance of the actual workings of the entertainment industry: that what she did is less important than the "mystique" (or hoopla, or hogwash) that now surrounds her. A problem, however, is that concentration on the latter far too easily settles for mindless recycling of awestruck but vacuous hyperbole (sometimes "balanced" by bucketloads of meticulously footnoted gossip and innuendo about "sexcapades" and the like). Writers must show that they are discussing this knowledgably and dispassionately, and are not merely exemplars of "icon" worship.

But I don't know if she is actually known by lots of people who haven't seen her movies. I saw her movies in the pre-DVD era but already long after her death. It's a lot easier to see her work now. Perhaps the popular interest in her now is still based on her work as an actress. The new introduction seems good. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Hoary. I'm glad that you approve. I agree that it's too long, and perhaps the career aspects need to be trimmed and the post-death cultural impact expanded, but I was hoping this could be a starting point. Rossrs (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement. Well written and objective. Also, thank you for taking the time for explaining your editions. Do you mind if I shorten it a little? All the same, you sure improved the thing, and I thank you.--Downtownstar (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. By all means shorten it - it needed trimming, and I think you've tightened it up considerably. The only content change that I would make is in relation to Bus Stop. I agree that it was too wordy, but I would like to put back "dramatic" just to distinguish that it wasn't another comedy. Back then, nobody really disputed that she could do comedy, but people were surprised that she was as good as she was in a drama. I think there are now too many paragraphs. I think some can be joined. I'll have a stab at it and see what you think, but paragraphing is not my strong suit. Rossrs (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your editing was fine again, and I agree with your point about Bus Stop. We're definitely getting somewhere with this!--Downtownstar (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead is so much better without all of those "qualifying" terms, and I think that it, now, reflects more fully Monroe as an actress. Thanks for all of the hard work. Icarus of old (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this article has a lot of potential, and I'm glad that the lead is being met with a positive response. Rossrs (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I do not think the new introduction is better. It makes her appear as some "sick" crazy woman who killed herself. Just not the case. Look at the facts and it will be very clear that she was very happy and healthy at the end of her life. I believe the last intro was filled with more accurate information. It has taken people many years to build it up the way it is, and I don't believe such a drastic change makes it better. Just my 2 cents.--Joe1p1p (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with that. The second paragraph turns this into a blonde-drugs-suicide-murder beatup. Yes Joe1p1p, this woman deserves more than shock horror in the lead of an encyclopedia. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that everyone is talking about the same version of the lead. Hoary, Downtownstar and Icarus of old who have been regular contributors to this article, have said they prefer the change I made. Downtownstar has further edited it. User:Lukion reverted at 18.06 5 July - commenting that my changes were "pointless" but without the courtesy of coming here to discuss any of the pointless comments that I explained here at some length. Also said "everything written is true", but that does not mean it is well written. User:Joe1p1p is commenting after the change, but I think is still commenting about the version I added. I don't understand how my wording makes her look "sick" or "crazy". I've given a reason for every change I've made, but I've also indicated that I'm happy to participate in discussion. If the points I've made above, one by one, are discussed, are there any in which you believe I'm wrong? User:Kaiwhakahaere is commenting about the drug-suicide beat up of paragraph 2, which is not the edit I made, but which is in the article following User:Lukion's revert, so it looks like a comment against the original/restored version. (because in my revision paragraph 2 discusses her early movie roles not a "murder-suicide" beat-up). This is confusing. Considering that User:Lukion has made exactly one edit to Wikipedia, I am going to consider that the discussion that has taken place here should be given more weight than his/her one edit, and revert it back, in the hope that discussion here will continue. Rossrs (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's consider Joe1p1p's preferred version. It has two paragraphs of roughly equal length. The first half of the first is a list, half of which is taken up by "icon" flatus. The second half of the first paragraph is a curious mixture of the abstract and posthumous money-earning potential. The second paragraph is glorified gossip about her death. All of this is scrupulously sourced, but if It [took] people many years to build it up the way it [was] I wonder about their sense of perspective. Rossrs' replacement is hugely better (which of course doesn't prevent me from criticizing it). -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticize it as much as possible. That's the only way we'll get it right. Rossrs (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, I don't think that is Joe1p1p's preferred version at all, but no doubt he will put us right on this. For my own part, I am sorry Rossrs that I wasn't clear on this. I support the version you have reverted to, the current version without that ghastly second paragraph. I suspect this is the case with Joe1p1p as well. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I thought (and hoped) that was the case with you. I do think that Joe's comment about it taking "years to build up" suggests support for the version prior to my revision, but yes, he should confirm that. Rossrs (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

During the rewrite discussed above, I added this paragraph to the lead "Her reputation and status have grown since her death, and today Marilyn Monroe is considered to be an iconic performer and one of the most significant cultural figures of her time. She is frequently imitated and referenced in popular culture." It's not supported by what's written in the article, so I think it should be removed. I will remove it simply because the lead should summarize what is contained in the article, and this doesn't. Rossrs (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I'm finding the article a bit confusing as I try to edit it, so I am going to add a timeline of notable events to refer back to. Please feel free to add, and hope this may be helpful to anyone contributing to the article. It may not be entirely accurate, and some events may need to be added. Rossrs (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1886: March 16, mother's first husband, Jasper Newton Baker born 16 Mar 1886 the son of John M. Elliot Baker and Etta Epperson of Knox County, Kentucky.
• 1897: Feb 26, mother's second husband, Martin Edward Mortenson born to Martin Mortenson of Norway and his wife Catherine Higgins of Missouri.
• 1924: Oct 11, mother's marriage to 2nd husband, Martin Edward Mortenson (1897-1981)
• 1926: June 1 born. June 13. Placed in foster care.
  
• 1928: August 15, divorce from 2nd husband Martin Edward Mortenson, but Mortenson was known to have physically defended her honor afterwards (cf. Spoto's 1993 biography)
• 1930: Appears on the 1930 Census as "Norma Jean Baker" with her mother and the Bolander's, Albert and Edna. She was incorrectly said to have been 63 yrs old and born in Indiana; her father, Martin Edward Mortenson, appears on the same Census in Los Angeles with his mother but miles away dispelling the Youngstown, Ohio 1929 "accident" theory.
• 1933: mid year - returns to her mother, Aug 16 - Marilyn's half-brother Robert Jasper "Kermitt" Baker dies
• 1934: Mother institutionalized
• 1935: June, made ward of state. Sep, enters orphanage
• 1937: June, taken from orphanage by Grace McKee
• 1938: Nov, goes to live with Ana Lower
• 1939: Jul 18, Mona Rae Miracle born to Paris Miracle and Berniece Baker, Marilyn's half-sister
• 1941: June, graduates high school
• 1942: June 19, marries James Dougherty
• 1944: Apr, starts working for Radio Plane Co
• 1945: Spring, photographed for Yank magazine, Summer, second photo shoot, Aug-signs Blue Book Agency
• 1946: April - first mag cover (Family Circle), June - files for divorce, July 19 - 1st screentest 20th Cent Fox, July 23 - sign 6 month contract as Marilyn Monroe, Sep - divorce finalized
• 1947: Jan - Fox contract renewed 6 months, Feb - Debut (Scudda-Hoo! Scudda-Hey!), Aug - contract not renewed, Dec - Dangerous Years is first release, though filmed after Scudda-Hoo
• 1948: Mar 9 - contract Columbia Pictures, Sep - contract not renewed, Dec - meets Johnny Hyde
• 1949: May - poses for nude calendar, Oct - signs with MGM for Asphalt Jungle
• 1950: Apr - All About Eve, Dec - death of Johnny Hyde
• 1951: Mar - presents Oscar, Sep - first national feature in Colliers magazine, Jasper Newton Baker dies Sep 17
• 1952: Mar 11 - mother files for divorce from her 3rd husband, John Stewart Eley (1886-1952), Apr 23 - John Stewart Eley dies
• 1952: Mar - starts dating Joe Di Maggio, Mar - nude calendar scandal, Apr - cover of Life, Jun - Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Sep - Grand Marshall at Miss America
• 1953: Mother finally institutionalized as an inmate of a sanitarium in Glendale, California
• 1953: Jan - Niagara released, becomes a "star", Jun - handprints outside Grauman's with Jane Russell, Sep - TV debut Jack Benny Show, Sep - meets Milton Greene, Nov - How to Be a Millionaire, Dec - fails to arrive on-set to start Girl in Pink Tights
• 1954: Jan 4 - suspended by 20th Cent Fox, Jan 14 - marries Di Maggio, Feb 2 - arrive Tokyo honeymoon, Feb 16 - 10 day tour of Korea, Sep 15 - shoots skirt scene for Seven Year Itch, Oct 5 - confirms seperation from Di Maggio, Nov - goes into a self-imposed "exile" (Milton Greene)
• 1955: Jan 7 - MM Productions launched, Jan 15 - suspended by 20th Cent Fox, Feb - meets Lee Strasberg, Apr 8 - Edward Murrow interview for Person to Person, Jun 1 - Seven Year Itch premiere, Oct 31 - divorce finalized Di Maggio, - tells the San Antonio Light that "Abraham Lincoln was my father."
• 1956: Jan 4: Fox/MM Prod agreement, Feb 9 - MM & Olivier announce Prince and the Showgirl, Jun 29 - marries Arthur Miller, July 14 - travels to London to film Showgirl, Aug - miscarriage(?), Oct 29 - Royal Command Performance, meets QEII
• 1957: June 13 - premiere Showgirl, Aug - miscarriage (?)
• 1958 : Aug 4 (until Nov) - shooting Some Like it Hot, Dec - miscarriage (?)
• 1959: Mar 29 - Some Like it Hot premiere
• 1960: Mar 8 - Golden Globe Award for SLIH, Jul 18 - start filming The Misfits, Aug 26 - suffers breakdown, halting filming, Nov 11 - announce divorce Miller, Nov 16 - death of Clark Gable
• 1961: Jan 20 - divorces Miller, Jan 31 - premiere The Misfits, Feb 7 - enters psychiatric clinic New York, Feb 11 - transferred following intervention by Joe Di Maggio, Oct - meets Robert Kennedy, Nov - meets JFK
• 1962: Feb - moves into Brentwood home, Mar 5 - Golden Globe "World's Film Favorite", Apr 23 - starts Something's Got to Give, May 19 - sings Happy Birthday Mr President, Jun 1 - last working day at Fox, Jun 7 - fired for breach of contract, Jun 23 - Bert Stern "Last Sitting" photo session, Jun 28 - Fox rehires, Jul 20 - enters hospital, Late Jul to Early Aug - overdoses from sleeping pills at Frank Sinatra's "Cal-Neva" Lodge in Tahoe (according to Chandler's "Frank Sinatra and the Mob"), Aug 3 - Life magazine cover, Aug 5 - body discovered, Aug 8 - funeral.
• 1963: Mother temporarily escapes from Glendale Sanitarium with a rope made from bed sheets, found preaching with a Christain Science bible in her hands exclaiming God told her to escape.
• 1967: Mother removed from Sanitarium by half-sister Berniece Miracle to Gainsville, Florida.
• 1981: Feb 10, probable father, Martin Edward Mortenson, dies of a heart attack at the wheel of his car in Mira Loma, Riverside, California. Coroner releases papers he held as proof the same day (see L.A. Times articles for 12 Feb 1981).
• 1984: Mar 11, mother dies in Gainsville
• 1990: Oct 23, Paris Miracle, husband of Berniece Baker, dies in Gainesville

Iconic, significant, blah blah blah

For the most part, I like the introduction. But I gag on the ending:

Her reputation and status have grown since her death, and today Marilyn Monroe is considered to be an iconic performer and one of the most significant cultural figures of her time.

I don't know about the first part of that. (My own guess is that as sleb obsession has since Monroe's death crept above the lowbrow [for example allowing Mailer to cobble together a derivative book about Monroe and still be taken seriously], the status of all remembered Hollywood actors has risen.) But as for the second part, what does "iconic performer" mean, and who so considers her? As for her status as cultural figure, the culture was predominantly celluloid: I'm puzzled to learn that she is considered one of the most significant among such people as Truffaut, Chabrol, Malle and Godard; and those are merely the French names of the time that come off the top of my head. Who is it that imputes all this significance to her?

Of course it's normal to make unsupported statements in the introduction and then to elaborate and source them below, but this article doesn't seem to talk about either iconicity or culture (where the latter isn't explicitly "popular", which seems to be a matter of sales). Indeed, it doesn't say how Monroe's reputation and status have increased after her death. (It does provide us with such gems as As of june 2008 legends has been healing the years of abuse and bad blood that has been created by the MMLLC & CMG) -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right: "it's normal to make unsupported statements in the introduction and then to elaborate and source them below, but this article doesn't seem to talk about either iconicity or culture". I felt that to remove it completely would be too confronting to too many editors, and this article is being developed and can be fixed. I agree that the sentence is gag-worthy but I don't think it's invalid. Of course, as there is no further discussion in the article, it is invalid by Wikipedia's guidelines, but I think the article needs to be added to. Among the points I think should be covered are : "legitimate" comments regarding her impact and current view of her (and if "iconic" can be at least put into context, it would be an improvement), her current commercial viability, people who have been influenced by her or compared to her, and cross cultural impact. A lot of people toss the word "icon" at her, and while a lot of it is nonsense and used without any thought, there are credible and reputable sources using that terminology. If presented in context, I think it's appropriate to mention that she is discussed in such terms. There's no context now, and there never has been, and that's one of the major problems with this article. For the record, I would like to see this article examined piece by piece, and brought into line with the general standard for WP:FA. It would currently fail for numerous reasons, but ultimately I think it can get there. Rossrs (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, we're not on so very different wavelengths then. Righty ho, let's defend the introduction against degradation, and move on; and thereafter, back to the introduction. -- Hoary (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. If we can get the article right, the introduction is so much easier to assemble. I wouldn't usually start with the intro but in this case I thought it necessary. Rossrs (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The last part made her sound like some crazy out of control wako. The information is simply not true. She was in the best state of her life. Listen, I am willing to bet that there are thousands of people who think she was killed and thousands not, but the lead should not try to convince the public one way or another.

Also, too many of her movies listed in the lead. I just don't like the new lead. The old one badly needed help, but the new one got rid of some key points. Ps-The first police officer who showed up after she died and the D.A. were not conspiracy theorists.--Joe1p1p (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is built around majority consensus, not the opinion of one or one speculating on the opinion of "thousands." Please cease deleting information until a consensus is reached. The official documents state that her death is an "accidental overdose"; your opinion that she was killed belies a WP:NPOV fan stance, which keeps the article from maintaining objectivity. I love Monroe, but her life is not the stuff of myth. AN encyclopedia is built on reliable, cited facts, not the opinions of a beloved, well-meaning fan base. Icarus of old (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There are thousands of people who believe in all sorts of things. But that's small potatoes: I've read reliable estimates of how tens of millions of US adults believe that the theory of evolution is wrong and that the world was created as the Bible says. They're wrong. ¶ "She was in the best state of her life." Do you have an authoritative source for this claim? ¶ Suppose there really were consensus that Monroe had been iced (by the mob, by the Kennedys, by would-be adders of fluorine to the water supply, whatever); would her murder justify half the introduction, and if so, why? ¶ Just what are these "key points" that have been removed? -- Hoary (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Joe1p1p, I appreciate that you have explained your viewpoint. I agree with a couple of your points, and disagree with others. I think there are too many film titles mentioned. I also see your point about linking to conspiracy theorists. True, not everyone who believes she was murdered, subscribes to the conspiracy theory. On the other hand, the previous version slanted too much in support of the murder theory. The updated version lists the three possibilities, "probable suicide" (to quote the coroner), accidental overdose and murder without endorsing or favoring any of these viewpoints. I see that as a much more neutral way of presenting the information, bearing in mind that it is not Wikipedia's role to investigate the mystery of Marilyn's death. You give yourself away with your edit summary "they all knew she was killed". This is obviously your belief, but until proven it is just a belief.

I disagree that you removed "barbiturates" from the summary. It was given by Noguchi as the cause of death, and this is not disproven by the fact that no residue was found in her stomach etc. Noguchi even said that a habitual user of this type of drug would digest more quickly, and other evidence was consistent - in any case it was in her blood, and was given as the cause of death. We are in no position to investigate how it got there. Noguchi's investigation has been called into question, and this is another story. I also disagree that to say she was troubled in the latter years of her life portrays her as crazy or out of control, and I think you are attaching a connotation that is not there. It is well documented that she suffered huge problems during the filming of Some Like it Hot and The Misfits and was even hospitalized. She was unreliable to the point that 20th Century Fox decided she was no longer worth the trouble and fired her. Also with a little cursory investigation, I find that a Vogue photographer and Life reporter both found her to be uncharactertistically withdrawn and negative during the last weeks of her life, and she told Life that she was tired of her career and wouldn't be sorry if it ended. She also fought with Frank Sinatra, ended her relationship with Paula Strasberg and had a major problem with Joe Di Maggio that resulted in her writing a cryptic apology letter which he received only after her death. These are just things I've found with a quick scan through a few books, but that are sourced and credited. It doesn't sound like a woman at the best point of her life. In fact, I think to say she had problems is an understatement. The other side of the coin is that she was rehired by 20th Century Fox, and had a few projects in the pipeline that offered real possibilities, but this is fairly minor when balanced against her problems, and her relationships with the Kennedy brothers is pretty well documented to have been a significant problem for her. It's not our job to investigate her death, but I'm offering these points simply as a response to the claim that she was at the highest point of her life. If you can provide reliable sources to prove me wrong, or more strongly support the idea that she was as happy as you say, then I'd be interested to see it.

In case you may question my motives, I will just say that I am a fan of Marilyn Monroe, so I do not in any way want to portray her in a negative light but I do not want her to be portrayed inaccurately. Just the facts, well supported with citations, and presented neutrally. I also don't want Wikipedia to be just one more place where she is portrayed as a goddess above reproach or a victim or a drug-addled fool or anything else that loses her in a sea of hyperbole, because there are more than enough such places on the internet serving exactly that function, and Wikipedia can do better than that. My opinion, which is not relevant to the article, but which is relevant to your comments, is that she was not "a crazy out of control wako". But I do think she had problems, and her actions are well documented. Rossrs (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but you are simply wrong. If I had the time I could write a book long statement about how wrong you are about her last days. Simply read what Pat Newcomb told the Herald Examiner on 8/15/62 (just a few weeks after her death). She was with Marilyn on the last day of her life (and the last two years). Or what Joe Dimaggio said, or Frank Capell, or Donald Wolfe, or John Miner, or what Bernard Spindel told the New York Times in 1965, etc. etc.

Your intro is one sided and missing key factors. NOGUCHI himself said she could have been murdered. NOGUCHI WAS LATER FIRED FOR SELLING BODY PARTS AND FOR COVER-UPS! HELLO! DiMaggio said she was killed, and was NOT SUICIDAL! He said they were going to get remarried on August 8. John Miner (the prosecutor) and Jack Clemons the first police officer to get there all said she was killed! I could go on and on, but I guess you don't care about the facts. These are not my opinions, but facts. Ps-Joe Dimmagio had to quit his $100,000. job on Aug 1, 1962 at V.H. Monette, Inc. of Smithfield, VA to move back to CA because Marilyn feared for her life. You call yourself a Marilyn fan, yet you paint her as a unreliable nut in the introduction of her own article.--Joe1p1p (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• The intro does not talk about the final days of her life but the final years, which were on the whole marked by problems. To say she had problems does not equal "she was a nut". Many books and references depict her turmoil over an extended period of time, and to revert that point citing "the Wolfe book", just doesn't work. Read just about any other book published, and the commonality is that in the final years of her life, Marilyn was troubled. This is not saying she was a bad person. The article needs to take a broad look at the story and present what is most strongly supported by published accounts. You seem to be selectively choosing from the accounts that fit your opinion that she was murdered, and also focussing on the more obscure points. The intro as it stands does not preclude the possibility that she was murdered, but it also does not lean toward it. The consensus is to leave the intro as it was, so please stop reverting it. Rossrs (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• And if you did want to pursue this (not recommended): What was Miner prosecuting, and what is your source for his saying this? When did Clemons say this, and what is your source for his having said it? Were either Miner or Clemons an expert in determining cause of death? -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I added a citation (one of many) for the whole "final years" debacle. I have many more to add if some user keeps reverting. Icarus of old (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Crap sourcing

marilynmonroe.com

This article cites marilynmonroe.com, whose unsigned biography (well, hagiography) starts Marilyn Monroe personified Hollywood glamour with an unparalleled glow and energy that enamored the world and ends A global sensation in her lifetime, Marilyn's popularity has extended beyond star status to icon. Today, the name "Marilyn Monroe" is synonymous with beauty, sensuality and effervescence. She remains an inspiration to all who strive to overcome personal obstacles for the goal of achieving greatness. Is this the kind of material that an encyclopedia should be citing? It doesn't look it to me, and neither does a lot of the other stuff that's cited here. -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

BBC

Eight places now point to what is now note 8, "Marilyn Monroe - Actress", a page at bbc.co.uk. That surprised me: What was the BBC doing creating such a general page about a long-dead actress. I decided to take a look. The page is this one, which has the very odd title "Edited Guide Entry", and somehow looks ... amateurish. I went up a level in the directory tree to this, where I read that "h2g2" has thousands of entries on all manner of subjects, all written by people like you. If we don't have the one you want, you can even write it yourself.

So this is no more authoritative than a wiki. This is not a reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So where are the books?

Unlike a number of people who've commented above, I am not a fan of Marilyn Monroe. I was mightily bored by both The Misfits (despite the fine cinematography) and Bus Stop. I saw the latter earlier and hoped against hope that it was a fluke, but The Misfits turned out to be so leadenly paced (I think for "significance") that I haven't wanted to see anything by her since.

Years ago, I was a fan (specifically, of Niagara). I read and possessed Guiles' biography and I read Zolotow's too. I'm puzzled here at WP: I'm surrounded by "fans" who seem curiously reluctant to cite solid books. They'd rather use web-hosted fangush, it seems.

If you consider yourself a fan, why not get hold of a couple of good books on the subject? -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I identified myself as a fan, and that's what I've been trying to do, so you're not surrounded. I agree, and everything I've added over the last couple of weeks has come from books. The whole article needs to be sifted through, and it's in such a bad state that it's not going to be achieved overnight. Other dubious sourcing is Brainy Quote, where quotes appear magically on the page without anything to suggest where they came from, Plastic Surgery For the Stars.com (or something like that) that just shows a couple of photos where Monroe admittedly looks somewhat different, and Brittanica.com which is critical of Wikipedia but which falls short of our own NPOV policy. All comments about individual movies previously came from Rotten Tomatoes, and the credentials of the commentators on that site are not evident. Much work to be done.

Books are imperfect however. Example: Barbara Leaming's Marilyn Monroe (1998) confidently pushes the suicide verdict while Donald Wolfe's The Assassination of Marilyn Monroe (also 1998) totally gives the game away in the title, and... pushes the murder theory. That's just two books in one year, out of many books written over many years. Much of what is commonly accepted of her early life is contained Marilyn Monroe's My Story (1974) and as it was published 12 years after her death, who knows what she actually said, but it closely resembles the press releases of the early 50s which were concocted to an unknown degree as part of her build-up. The Many Lives of Marilyn Monroe by Sarah Churchwell (2004) is quite interesting in that it doesn't follow a traditional biographical line. Rather it tells the known facts, but also comments on the telling of her tale by different biographers, and noting the discrepancies, some of which are huge. To attempt to sift through conflicting source material to construct a reasonably accurate article, is going to be something of a challenge, also bearing in mind that it is not our role to act as detectives, either in trying to determine who her father was or the circumstances of her death. But who doesn't love a challenge? Do you have access to the Guiles and Zolotow books by any chance? Rossrs (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry Rossrs, I didn't have you particularly in mind. No, I didn't have you in mind at all, other than as somebody who, some way above, was squawked at: "How can you call yourself a fan when you write [whatever]" or similar. Your a fan with critical faculties, I'm a non-fan with critical faculties: we're both on the critical faculties side in this.

Books are a big problem. My impression is that there's not much demand for new, non-"sensational" biographies of people who have already got biographies. Instead, the writer must do something that will let his publisher shriek that MM bonked a Kennedy, bonked two Kennedys, had a Kennedy love-child, was an extraterrestrial, you name it. Mention of Leaming again reminds me of problems: her (scrupulously footnoted) bio of Orson Welles uncritically related all that the man had told her, while Higham's near-simultaneous (scrupulously footnoted) bio uncritically related all the dirt that everybody else had told him about Welles, while Brady's slightly later bio seems very biased but has no footnotes at all and could all have been made up. Still, Bogdanovich's bio of Welles, Cowell's, and another I can't think of now seemed to get it right -- and for all I know by now there may be yet more bios of this man, together with sleaze and earnest PoMo "deconstructions" and the like.

I don't have any book on Monroe, sorry. (I even got rid of my books on Welles.) But a few days from now I'll see if the library has anything. --

It's not a problem Hoary. It was mock indignation - I realize we have similar viewpoints. New books have to have an angle, and if one of the Kennedys is ever proven to have been an extraterrestrial, that'll open up a whole new series of Monroe books, a film or two, and perhaps a Broadway musical. Perhaps we don't even need proof. Just an allegation may suffice. I think it's not simply a case of biographers like Leaming being uncritical, although that contributes. I think they go into a project with an opinion already in place. Leaming believes Monroe committed suicide, so anything that doesn't fit that theory isn't of sufficient interest to her. Likewise Wolfe doesn't entertain any discussion that doesn't fit into his theory. My opinion only, but I don't know how else to account for two people seeing the same "evidence" and interpreting it so differently. Scrupulous footnoting can be uncritical but I also think it can be deliberately biased and selective, and therein lies the danger. I think it's the reader more often than not that is truly uncritical, rather than the author. Rossrs (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Template above

I hadn't realized that Monroe was lesbian, bi, or transsexual. What have I been missing? -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The person who left the banner says she's a gay icon. Whatever. :/ Icarus of old (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I'm never sure what, if anything, "icon" means, but I'd been under the vague impression that Monroe was an "icon" of straight males. Does "gay icon" mean somebody like Dubya? -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Her father

I've rewritten this section. It was previously somewhat awkward but also seemed to be trying to say who he was. Monroe's biographers don't agree, so we should avoid conjecturing. It's enough to say that his identity is unknown. I've removed the link to the New York Times article about another Mortenson being determined to have been the father. Although at a glance, the source is more credible than most, one thing strikes me as extremely odd. It was dated 1981 and yet in the 27 years that have passed since that article was written, nobody has picked up the ball and run with it - amazing for a Monroe related item, where rumours usually grow wings and fly pretty quickly. Recent biographers have failed to discuss it, and even a basic Google search shows that it's not been discussed with any significance since. Although there is nothing I can find to discredit it, one would think that 27 years is more than enough time for additional material to have been published in support of it, so it seems to amount to yet another theory. In the article we give it undue weight that is not demonstrated elsewhere, so it's not appropriate to use. Rossrs (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that after Mortenson died in 1981 it was conclusive: he was her father, just that he left Gladys since he didn't want to have anything to do with the baby. My people grew up with the Mortenson's, Dougherty's, Deal's and the like; my mother was the niece of Col. Reginald Barlow. The biographers that I see everyone quoting here are all questionable sources who often times get the facts wrong. WB2 (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Height and appearance

Two things: Her height is listed in the Playboy infobox as being 5'5 and 1.7m (not 1.7m typed, but just as a conversion of 5'5 to metric - have a look at the edit page for it to see what I mean by that). 5'5 is 1.65m, not 1.7m. Any ideas why this is happening?

And secondly, did she ever have cosmetic surgery? I was convinced she did, but I can't find any mention of it in the article. -- Dandelions, not logged in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.112.111 (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read she had 6 toes on her left foot, but had the one surgically removed. Forget where the article was though. 66.134.110.154 (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha. Well, the toe thing is a joke, but she did have some minor surgery to her nose and chin. She had her widow's peak removed, and of course dyed her hair blonde from reddish-blonde. This was early in her career when she was still a model. She may have had a minor amount of teeth work done as well. I will try to find a source, but having read her biography, I know it is sourced. Cheers.-Cbradshaw (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she had several cosmetic surgical procedures, from 1949 or 1950 on, including chin augmentation and nose "chiseling".

It is actually quite well documented. There is a documentary television program called "Hollywood Knives" or something like that. It's all there, including the names of her surgeons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.37.105 (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sex Tape

Im sure that I heard on the news that a private collector had bought a sex tape of her for 1.8 million dollars in order to preserve her dignity so it wouldn't be publicised? Don't have any sources to back this up though :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.97.187 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This was mentioned in the article in late April, when the news stories appeared. A few weeks later, a number of editors reached consensus to remove this information. You can read the archived discussions on the matter at Talk:Marilyn_Monroe/Archive 1#Sex tape section or Talk:Marilyn_Monroe/Archive 1#Porn film tittle-tattle. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone had (re-)added the information in question, and I've reverted it, based on the previous consensus. Obviously, previous consensus is not set in stone, though speaking for myself I'd like to see a convincing argument for re-inclusion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Strasberg share of will

The problem with applying percentages to who got what is that we don't know the actual amount of the residue in her estate, because of the wildly differing guestimates over the years. Very few say her estate was even worth $100,000. Whatever, we know Strasberg can't have got 75 per cent of the residue, whatever its value, because this is what is stipulated in her official will which the article links to:

"SIXTH: All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both real and personal, of whatsoever nature and wheresoever situate, of which I shall die seized or possessed or to which I shall be in any way entitled, or over which I shall possess any power of appointment by Will at the time of my death, including any lapsed legacies, I give, devise and bequeath as follows:

(a) to MAY REIS the sum of $40,000.00 or 25% of the total remainder of my estate, whichever shall be the lesser,

(b) To DR. MARIANNE KRIS 25% of the balance thereof, to be used by her as set forth in ARTICLE FIFTH (d) of this my Last Will and Testament.

(c) To LEE STRASBERG the entire remaining balance."

For simplicity's sake, let's say the residue value was $100,000. Under (a), Reis got $25,000, (the lesser amount) leaving a balance of$75,000. Under (b), Kris got 25 percent of that balance, $18,750, leaving the entire remaining balance of $56,250 which is 56.25 percent of a $100,000 residue, not the 75 percent in the article which I changed, and have changed again. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you start your reasoning with an assumption then deduct something from that. If you pose the mathematical equation of what the residue would be, depending on the amount of the initial estate, you will find that it CANNOT reach 75%, but will get closer and closer the larger the estate was. So for $100,000 the reminder is 56.25%, that's true. But if she left $200,000, the residue becomes %60; for $600,000, it's 70%, and for $3M becomes 74%, and let's get crazy, for $50M it's 74.94%. I understand that she may not have left that much, since we don't know, this is still possible, and something between 72.5% and 74% is close enough to 75% to not be mad at a journalist for reporting a round number. Candelabre (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the bit which said "we don't know the actual amount of the residue in her estate", and that few people "say her estate was even worth $100,000". Your figures (as examples) of $200,000 or $600,000 or $3M or $50M are irrelevant in the context of this article. The article now correctly says "Monroe left Lee Strasberg just over half of the residuary estate", rather than 75 percent. Your comment "you will find that it CANNOT reach 75%" supports what I said a few lines earlier, namely, "Strasberg can't have got 75 per cent". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Anorexia?

Is she anorexic?

It says from a playboy datasheet that Monroe's waist is about 24 inches. For a comparison, an average horizontal circumference of an adult human's head is about 23 inches.

I'd say it's got to be in a region below 34 inches, (which is my waist -being a 20 y/o man), and above....per say... 29 inches is normal enough for any woman I see on the streets.

88.105.106.100 (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it seems like a small waist, but unless you have the body of a Playboy centrefold your own girth is probably not a suitable point of reference ;-) After I read your comment, I thought maybe it was a typo, so I went to the pages of several more recent models and found that 24 is fairly average. I don't think it suggests anorexia - Monroe was obviously healthy and well proportioned. If you look here there are some models with waists even smaller. A random group: AJ Alexander (25"), Jasmine Pavel (24"), Thea Coleman (22"), Jema Stone (24") and Nicole Voss (23"). I picked these at random from the Playboy directory, and these are all contemporary models. It looks like the info is probably correct, or at least we can't say that it's incorrect. Rossrs (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to get your head out of 2008. Women have significantly changed shape in the last 60 years. Many of Monroe's contemporaries had waist measurements of between 22" - 24". One in particular Sabrina (actress) had a much admired initial waist measurement of 17" (later becoming 19" when she filled out a bit) coupled with impressively outstanding breasts and was still far from being anorexic. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mortenson or Mortensen?

Mortenson, according to her official bio - http://www.marilynmonroe.com/about/bio.html - copyright Marilyn Monroe, LLC. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Martin E Mortenson and you get few hits, one of those being our wiki entry....Google Martin E Mortensen and there are many many more hits, even several referring to Norma Jeane's birthname as MortensEN, looks like her official bio suffers from a typo 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If google is your standard: "Norma Jeane Mortensen" = 6,690 hits; "Norma Jeane Mortenson" = 21,700 hits. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of seeing this coming up on my watchlist. This may help: birth certificate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an o to me. It's kind of hard to tell. Compare with the o in Norma and the e in Jeane. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the second (lower) document. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely an o. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea I agree with you that on the birth certificate it is an o. I apologize for the continuos changing of her name but I was positive that the Martin Mortensen referenced in the article spelt it with an "EN" and i assumed that Marilyn's birth certificate did as well. My mistake and thank you for clearing it up (Martin is my Great-Grandpa so I wanted it to be correct) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpm296 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear that Martin filled it out (since some of his info is listed as "unknown"), so it could have easily been misspelled on the birth certificate. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that is probably true. Thanks again for clearing this all up for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpm296 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Easily done. The Registrar mis-spelled my surname on my son's birth certificate and we did not notice till he was five years old and we were registering him for school. It took months and reams of documents to get it corrected. It would be highly likely that an American registrar would easily "Americanise" a name told to him. So where does that leave us then? My feeling is that we should leave Martin's name spelled with "sen" and an editors note that it is correct and should not be changed....and Norma Jeane's name spelt with "son" and a note that it was spelled incorrectly on the birth certificate. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Jpm296, here is where you may learn an important lesson about Wikipedia - the actual spelling of your great-grandfather's name is less important than what reliable sources say the spelling is. If you can document your connection to Martin Mortensen, I suggest you start a blog or website to correct the situation for future researchers. Get your information together and contact your local press. I'm sure people would be interested, and perhaps Wikipedia will be convinced to change based on your story. Now everyone go back to their Marilyn-centric edit wars and forget I was ever here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources do document his name as Mortensen it was an original misprint based on what was said on Marilyn's birth certificate. The real question was what Marilyn's name was on her birth certificate and the images show that it ended in "ON" and that now cannot be debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpm296 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy section

Maybe there is a history on this matter, but the current lack of content under the 'Kennedy' section seems to render it all but meaningless. Given that there is much rumor about her relationships with JFK and RFK, if there is no sourced material the section can probably be deleted. If there is speculation or evidence re: relationships from reliable sources, it can be included. What's there now is already covered elsewhere in the article. JNW (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Rossrs (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph to that section that elaborates more on the relationships, if any.--Gloriamarie (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

Monroe is referenced in popular culture probably more than any other celebrity, and a fairly lengthy list of references already exists at Marilyn Monroe in popular culture. To give just two of the many possible references here is redundant. I think this article could discuss how and why she's become a pop culture figure, and perhaps some examples would give context. It's not really necessary to give a couple of examples here without context because that role is performed by the sub-article (in which both Insignificance and Quantum Leap are mentioned, though not discussed.) I'm removing the section again for that reason. Rossrs (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was such an article. Now it can be given more prominence.--Marktreut (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a fan site...

I must say I totally agree with the user Rossrs (the author of "Significant, iconic - blah blah blah", see above). Way too many statements and adjectives are simply rehashed gushing from her fans, with no substantial evidence to bolster them. (I'll use the same example as Rossrs: where is the evidence and concrete references supporting the subjective statements about her "significance", or about her fame "increasing" in the years after her death? Even if they are, or seem to be, widely accepted, they still need solid evidence to prove they are anything more than a subjective view. Also, if such statements are to be included, they would only be legitimate if they also included a review of the possible causes of such phenomena.)

This IS, after all, an "encyclopedic" entry - at least, it's supposed to be. Subjective views, let alone adoring gazes, have no place here. There are enough fan sites around, to fuel her fans' obsession with her sundry myths. Does Wikipedia have to be another one?

Thanks for your comments. You should have seen this article a year ago, but you are right in saying it still needs a lot of work. Rossrs (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Categories

I've removed the Jewish categories as unsourced. I don't know what is right and wrong in this matter, so I hope someone will be able to explain. The main thing is that it is unsourced in the article, and therefore the categories are also unsourced.

From the following books:

Goddess, the Secret Lives of Marilyn Monroe by Anthony Summers. Around the mid 50s, Monroe became interested in Judaism due to her close relationship with Lee and Paula Strasberg, and then during her relationship with Arthur Miller. He says she learnt the basic tenets of Judaism, insisted on two wedding ceremonies, one Jewish, and agreed to raise any children from her marriage to Miller in the Jewish faith. No mention of her converting to Judaism. I don't know enough about Judaism to know if one must convert in order to be married in a Jewish ceremony. Could someone enlighten me please if that's the case?

Marilyn Monroe by Barbara Leaming, and The Unabridged Marilyn by Randall Riese and Neal Hitchens both mention her Jewish wedding ceremony, but neither discuss her conversion to Judaism, and it's a fairly important biographical issue. Each of the biographers have picked her life to pieces and yet have not mentioned it.

Our article says she converted to Judaism, but no source is given, so I have requested one. It would be best to wait until it's sourced before the categories are added again, and if it's true, a source should be easy enough to find. Rossrs (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. I found a few references that I'll add to the article, including the BBC, Time and a New York Times article that mentions her certificate of conversion. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that solves the problem very effectively. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Information to add re: Playboy

Since the article is locked us lowly IPs can't add information. In the part where her appearance in Playboy is mentioned, it should be indicated that the 1949 photo was in fact the first "centerfold" of the magazine (although of course it wasn't a fold-out like they had later). Plus, according to Playboy's website, Monroe technically wasn't the first Playmate of the Month -- something often stated erroneously -- but rather was the magazines first and only "Sweetheart of the Month". I think this is worth mentioning. 68.146.62.92 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

About the IP thing, If you created a wikipedia account, You wouldn't have that problem. Then you could add your information. Nz26 02:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Awards

Why is it her other awards she won is not listed? Only the Globe for Some like it hot. I believe these as well should be added:

1952 Photoplay Award: Special Award 1953 1953 Golden Globe World Film Favorite Female. 1953 Photoplay Award: Most Popular Female Star Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame 6104 Hollywood Blvd. 1962 Golden Globe World Film Favorite

I think the article isn't focused enough on Marilyn the actress, so much as Marilyn the celebrity. Let's not forget, the woman was a talent, not just a pretty face who wore a white pleated dress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marylynn 03 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Zanuck

Regarding this edit and the comment that it was POV. To clarify why it's not POV and why it's relevant, Zanuck had previously seen little potential in Monroe and her earlier films had been minor films for the studio. When Zanuck noted that the films released following her nude photo "scandal" achieved good ticket sales, and Monroe achieved good publicity - he realized her "potential" and cast her in an "A" picture. It's an important point in the progress of her career. It's not POV to acknowledge that the one person most able to advance her career at that time, Zanuck, suddenly realized she could do it. It's all sourced, so I don't see a problem. Rossrs (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Riley Kromeich?

Check out the first line of this entry. 140.244.128.12 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it Jean or Jeane?

I've seen it both ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.7.237 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Marilyn and the Kennedy Hoffa dispute

Perhaps a section on Marilyn being drawn indirectly into the dispute that raged between Mr Jimmy Hoffa and Mr Robert Kennedy could be included. Many of the health problems Marilyn suffered may have been a result of the stress she was forced to endure as a result of the argument between Mr Hoffa and Mr Kennedy. Although there is little or no 'proof' the amount of comments and interviews that state Marilyn's home was often burgled and bugged secretly has to have some credibility. On one alleged tape recording secretly made a man is heard shouting at Marilyn; "where are the microphones, you know they are here", Marilyn is said to reply; "microphones, what 'microphones'", she had no idea they were there. She was the major chess piece in a game designed to destroy a top American politician without her knowledge. Is it any wonder photographs of her at the time often show her looking stressed? Nor can the incident be dismissed as 'trivia' if it contributed to her reckless use of drugs.Johnwrd (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions in article

Birth surname

The first line states she was born Mortensen; the infobox states she was born Baker. WP improver (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death

The Death and aftermath section states the coroner recorded that it was an accidental overdose, yet the categories are suicide, not accidental death. WP improver (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian-American?

This category is present, yet the Family and early life section states that Edward Mortenson was not her father, as he split from her mother before conception. Unless her mother had Norwegian ancestry, the category should be removed. I believe his surname should be spelt Mortensen, as that is the Norwegian spelling of the name. WP improver (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

eBay sale of cemetary plot near Monroe's

The plot is on sale here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250510100971

paul klenk ^talk 23:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sex film redux

Pisomojado has restored the information about the supposed April 2008 sale of a Monroe sex film. This section had previously been deleted as per consensus, see Talk:Marilyn_Monroe/Archive 1#Sex tape section or Talk:Marilyn_Monroe/Archive 1#Porn film tittle-tattle. Obviously, consensus is not set in stone. If this information is to remain then I believe we should consider using one of the suggested versions in the latter archived discussion. I believe someone had raised issues as to whether Defamer.com and/or Smoking Gun are reliable sources or not. I think in any case the article should make reference to this MSNBC report. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This article has ENOUGH rumor and tabloid additions as it is; the above can't be verified and news outlets on the web and even those are TV are not known for detail. So one must first look at what is stated; then look at the source; then look at the context and CROSS CHECK things. Truth in history is generally a matter of consensus and if available, based on physical evidence. Here you had surmise at best put forth with a suspect third party source, Hoover and Co. I also see where one cite is from "Entertainment_News" and another from the "New York Post". The addition does not meet Wiki standards; for now I edited the most obtuse parts. Kierzek (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Some clarification: The public record, i.e. the FBI files, do not say that the film was confiscated, nor do they say that Hoover went to great lengths to prove the man in the film was JFK. As the UPI article notes, Morgan said this. (The Yahoo link no longer works, and it doesn't come up at archive.org.) The last 3 pages of the FBI files only say that an informant reported having seen the film. The last page says "The above is being furnished to the FBI Lab...", but I read "above" meaning the information in the top half of that page, not the film to which it refers. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the article, as per my previous comments. I added links to the FBI documents themselves as well as to an MSNBC.com article that is more critical than the original news reports. Personally, I would not mind seeing the section (again) deleted, as I explained last year when it first appeared in this article (see previous links to the archives). But if it is going to remain in the article, then we've got to be careful and report what the FBI documents actually state, and that at least one source (MSNBC) has questioned the entire story. Thanx, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope no one minds that I enter this conversation, as a major Marilyn Monroe fan since I was 6 years old and am now in my 20s I would just like too say I find it very disrespectful and careless too have a section dedicated too a Pornographic film of Marilyn that does not exsist and was brought too the public not by a "Fan" or "Producer" but an exploiter. There was no one reason too bring this so-called tape too the publics attention, oh wait yes there was, for the producer of some shitty documentary about Marilyn too exploit her too get attention for his documentary if you can call it that. Also the tape is old news and can not really be verified by an actual source if you want too call Kia or whatever the hell his name is a source then I have lost complete faith in Wikipedia. Including that section would only fuel the hate from haters and also I do not think it is not worthy enough too have its own section, if it is going too be left I do think the section should be deleted and the refrence that fake film be put somewhere else. Considering New York City doesnt have a section devoted too 9/11(Something that happend) I do not see how Marilyn should have a section too a film that almost certainly does not exsist. Then again Marilyn is not a city. But thats just my input! I would vote too have the section deleted! Any seconders? - Chris ChrisKardashian 10:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could write that again, more coherently. ¶ "a Pornographic film of Marilyn that does not exsist"; later "a film that almost certainly does not exsist": are you changing your mind over its existence in the course of a paragraph, or are you talking about a nonexistent film and also a separate, almost certainly nonexistent film? ¶ "Kia or whatever the hell his name is": if you're conspicuously unwilling to check names, your own arguments are a lot less likely to impress. ¶ "the hate from haters": Who are these "haters" and what is the nature of this "hate"? -- Hoary (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue of the sex film was settled months ago, the consensus was that it was completely bogus and did not belong in the article. Lets not have the same debate over again, it was deleted for a reason after many weeks, maybe months of debate, please respect that fact. Nov 23, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

HOEray you clearly knew what I meant but you just had too be a little smart ass didnt you? Go get laid. I also don't bother too find the names of people who I think are the scum of the earth! ... added in this edit at at 05:00, 2 December 2009 by User:Chriskardashian

Thank you for your best wishes for my sex life, Chriskardashian, but let's not develop this much further, else other people hereabouts may be offended. Look, I'm sorry if you took offense, but if something's worth saying, it's worth getting straight. ¶ Anyway, it seems that Monroe's blowjob tape (which only a tiny number of reliable sources claim to have seen) is old hat, now that there's what's purported to be a tape of her smoking the demon weed. The Guardian, which I used to think was a real newspaper (among the advertisements) is showing this, and I can only infer that the sky is falling again. -- Hoary (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This Keya Morgan guy is the same guy who just bought the video of Marilyn Monroe smoking pot. He also is the same guy who put the collections together for Obama, Tony Bennett, the White House, and a bunch of other big shots. I am sure all the news is authentic as I have seen the videos for myself.--Gazoli9 (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You certainly make him sound like a super important person. (Obama got a collection and the White House got a collection? Of what -- dope-smoking vids?) But I don't think that a news story is authenticated by the word of one Wikipedia editor that they have seen "the videos". And neither do I think that authenticated trivia (if it can be authenticated) is more than trivia. -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You did not see the new private video of her smoking and drinking? It's on CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS, AP, and like a million other sites. According to google the Marilyn Monroe video and story is on over 400,000 news outlets. I never said Morgan is super important, Obama and the world media does apparently think so. Everything he does is headline news.--Gazoli9 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC) CNN about Keya Morgan

A million teevee channels, Gazoli9? -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Gazoli, again, just because a "news outlet" reports something, does not make it fact. Also remember that history is a consensus of fact and probability. Kierzek (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The little old lady who took the footage said it was pot and that it belonged to her and that she rolled it up herself. She hands it over to her friend Marilyn in the film. The little old lady was there and would know. Not me, and not you. --Gazoli9 (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Did she drive real fast and drive real hard? Was she the terror of Colorado Boulevard? -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Little Old Lady", Gazoli (and Hoary not the one "from Pasadena"). That is the hard evidence as to the truth of the matter asserted. The statement is from someone who cannot give physical proof; the film is ambiguous, her statement was not under oath (although that does not always matter, people still can be incorrect even then); there are no other witnesses to back up her story; we don't know her motives or the state of her mind; and anytime one states something from memory there are problems. Kierzek (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

surname baptize

Article: but baptized Norma Jeane Baker- How can a person be baptized with a surname? --Feliks (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Elsie Poncher's husband

elsie poncher's husband, face down grave above marilyn's... is this true? spending all of eternity "seeing" her —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.35.99 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotations

Marilyn Monroe is known for many things like her body, relationships, movies, pictures, and beauty. Her quotations prove to be important as well, but are not listed. Many look up to Monroe and it would be a shame to not have some quotations from the beauty icon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkscarbro (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A link is provided at the bottom of the article to her page on Wikiquote. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Smoking pot section

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

I would like to write a section about her smoking pot and the video Keya Morgan bought. I think this is historically very important and should be done. Does someone else want to help me write it? I am new here, but thanks for any help. Best--Gazoli9 (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes it historically very important? She is known more as an actress than anything else, so this is not particularly notable, and it looks like the kind of muck-raking that has followed her through her life and beyond, in my opinion, but I'm prepared to read why it is notable. The lead section should be a summary of the most important aspects of the article, and this definitely does not belong there. (Refer WP:LEAD) It is also important that any new information be supported by a reliable source. (WP:RS) I'm removing it from the article on that basis. I don't want to step on your enthusiasm, as you are new here, and that is not my intention. I do believe it is something the article doesn't need, but as I said, if you explain why you believeit to be historically significant, I will listen to what you say. Rossrs (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no actual evidence that she was smoking pot, she could have been smoking a hand rolled cigarette. Honestly why would a star of her calibre allow herself to be filmed smoking pot, it might not be a big deal today, but in the 1950's and 1960's that's the sort of thing that would cause a MAJOR scandal and could end a career. Also the involvement of Keya Morgan should give one pause, he's not a credible source, and he’s made up things in the past about Monroe in order to drum up publicity for himself. Dec 3, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not making this stuff up, it's on thousands of websites. And the Morgan guy is very credible according to all the books I have read. Here is just one of many things I found on him. Book, Lincoln by Chuck Wills, Page 158, "Keya Morgan is a widely respected scholar of Lincoln photography and owner of the world’s largest collection of original Abraham Lincoln and General Grant photographs... From the 1930s until 2000, Mr. Ostendorf was the leading authority on the subject of Lincoln photography, and for many years served as mentor to Keya Morgan, effectively passing the torch to him to maintain an unbroken chain of Lincoln scholarship from the 1930s into the 21st century."

Items from the Keya Morgan Collection have been placed in the permanent collections of the White House, the Library of Congress, and The Smithsonian Institute, as well as the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, and the Louvre Museum in Paris. The collection has been featured in hundreds of magazines, newspapers, books and documentaries, including Time magazine's July 4, 2005, Lincoln issue, with Lincoln on the Cover."--Gazoli9 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This article has ENOUGH additions that are questionable as it is; the above (alleged pot smoking) can't be verified by any source. It is speculation and conjecture. And just because a "news outlet" reports something, does not make it fact. Kierzek (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

He's one Lincoln scholar who gets around. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You sound a little like Keya Morgan's publicist. I honestly have no interest in him. My question was why this is, in your words, "historically very important", and as you haven't answered that, I'll continue to assume that it's not. This is trivia, and represents yet another person picking at Marilyn's corpse for money. It reeks of opportunism, sensationalism and exploitation, and I see nothing that marks it as an important moment in Monroe's history, let alone in the broader historical sense that you seem to be suggesting. It's fascinating that nearly 50 years after her death, there are people so obsessed with these little sneak-peaks into her private life, that a crappy bit of home movie can sell for such a vast sum. That's interesting. The film and Keya Morgan, not so much. Rossrs (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny! I wish I was Keya Morgan's publicist, I would make a lot more money if I was. I think this is one of the most important pieces of American film footage ever discovered in the past few decades. You ask why it is important? That is like asking why Dali paintings sell for $50 million. It is important because Marilyn Monroe is the most important movie star of all time and she is in the private setting of a home, unpublished.--Gazoli9 (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I googled for Dali and auctions and so on, and the first substantive hit was this one, in which the reliable Melikian tells us that a kitschy looking Dalí daub very recently went for 1.87 million bucks. And this was in a sale that "can leave no one in doubt that the art market is as vigorous as it ever was before last year’s financial troubles." So I'm not even sure that his paintings go for 50 million a pop. If they do, I venture to suggest that the reason is that the buyer figures he'll make more when he sells it. Perhaps the buyer of some film that purports to show Monroe puffing on a spliff hopes to sell it for more. ¶ Incidentally, for somebody who's allegedly "the most important star of all time", Monroe made remarkably few films of lasting quality. Not that this was necessarily her fault: I turned off my DVD of The Misfits after about thirty minutes, bored by slack pacing and portentous dialogue put in the mouths of all the characters. Still, so far as she is important, she's important for her movies, not for trivia. -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The film is only of interest because she is allegedly doing something naughty. Naughty Marilyn. If she was applying make-up or walking her dog, we'd care a bit less, wouldn't we? Or a lot less? The recently "discovered" behind-the-scenes films from The Misfits and Some Like it Hot are probably of more significance culturally, but even they are trivial asides with less cultural value than either of the two motion pictures in question, or the overall impact of Marilyn on popular culture. I don't see this film having any impact upon popular culture, movie history, the history of the 20th century, or anything else it might remotely fall under. I don't see it changing perception of Monroe, or becoming part of her well-known, over-reported story. It will have a short shelf-life and its current supposed importance is based more on shock value and the desire for a quick buck, than on anything of significance. For something to have importance, it must have at least the potential to influence, or to impact, and that can't be measured by Google hits. Whatever Dali's paintings sell for, doesn't matter. It's not a fair comparison. Dali's work is something created to convey the attitude of the artist, and I won't go into the themes and aims of his artwork, but to compare it with someone opportunistically holding a camera in front of an actress who may or may not have been indulging in a forbidden substance, is pointless. In the eyes of some people, Monroe is "the most important star of all time", but that's an opinion, and it doesn't justify the apparent need to dissect every element of her life. The American Film Institute places her at number 6, behind Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Audrey Hepburn, Ingrid Bergman and Greta Garbo. More opinions, of course. If a film was found of Garbo puffing away on a joint, I doubt it would attract much interest. It's just because it's Marilyn, but the fact that it's Marilyn does not elevate it above trivia. It's a minor, personal event. I agree with you when you say it's in a "private setting", which makes the voyeuristic attitude more unpalatable to me, but regardless of the setting, she was not caught in the middle of a pivotal moment in history. It's hardly the Zapruder film. Rossrs (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said Rossrs. I don't know how we got started talking about this up in the section: "Sex film redux", but one could say the subjects are related due to both being something that was put out to shock, make a buck, was reported by "news outlets", and the alleged subject matter cannot be confirmed, to say the least. Kierzek (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(←Outdent) It is notable (inasmuch as any of this is or isn't notable) that the CNN article only uses the word "cigarette," with no further specification as to the cigarette's contents. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What is an outdent? According to ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and thounsands of papers around the world it was weed, not tabaco ABC NEWS This story is historically very important. If Babe Ruth is important to baseball fans, Marilyn Monroe is one of the most important people that has ever lived. Everybody knows this, just a fact.--Gazoli9 (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am hereby outdenting. It means a deliberate and unusual moving leftward of a paragraph.

You say that Marilyn Monroe is one of the most important people that has ever lived. Everybody knows this. Clearly "everybody" excludes me. Just to look at the 20th century, a list of the people far more important (in my view) than Monroe would include a few hundred national presidents and prime ministers. If you think that Monroe is more important to the world than Medvedev or Andropov, let alone Brezhnev or Stalin, I confess that I start to wonder what you have been smoking.

But let's suppose for a moment that Monroe is indeed one of the most important people that has ever lived. If this story is historically very important, then the history won't have evaporated weeks or even months from now. Why the rush? Wikipedia isn't a newspaper.

I wonder how it can be very important, though. Suppose it's eventually proven that Monroe smoked dope. How will this affect our evaluation of Some Like It Hot? Or our evaluation of dope? Or of what?

Somehow your recent edits bring to mind certain edits from two years ago. Here's an example, in which Bobtoo adds The New York Daily News reported on August 2, 2007 that Producer Keya Morgan had interviewed an FBI agent for his upcoming documentary who was sitting outside of Marilyn Monroe's house in a surveillance van the night Marilyn died -- with the edit summary FBI info is very historical and important. It was published in the NY Daily News. At that time "very historical and important", now "historically very important"; but both times these Earth-shattering descriptions were just for tabloidy material related to something that somebody called Keya Morgan was hawking. Bobtoo's edit history showed a near complete preoccupation with Morgan-related Monroe trivia; your own does too. If this isn't just a coincidence and you are related, do please bring me up to date on the mystery man of Japanese photography, Takashi Oyama. -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Gazoli9 - you seem to be missing an important point. Nobody is disputing Monroe's notability, although your view of her notability seems to be wildly overstated. Monroe's notability is not the issue. The issue is the notability of the film. Several comments have been made supporting the notion that the film is not notable, and you've not written anything of substance to say that it is. The only notability you are dealing with is that of Monroe and that of Keya Morgan. It does not follow that merely because a person is notable, every piece of trivia associated with them is also notable. If the film is historically important, tell us why and if it truly is important, that should not be hard to do. Don't bring Dali or Babe Ruth into the mix either. How is the film going to change our lives? Rossrs (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnyajohn/Archive. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure why GeneKellyusa483 removed this comment earlier. It’s directly related to the question of whether or not a section on the video that has surfaced of Marilyn Monroe supposedly smoking pot should be included in the article. The “citations and references” are below:

I was trying to find out the results of the auction of the video on eBay, and I found that eBay had removed the auction shortly after it finished, and cancelled the accounts of both the seller and the high bidder -the bidding history is viewable here:

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=190355289852&afsrc=1

note that the buyers account is no longer registered. The sellers account was also cancelled by eBay:

http://myworld.ebay.com/fine-estates7

A little sleuthing (check out the feedback fine-estates7 left for others) turned up the curious account named historical-items, which was also un-registered by eBay and had the same number of feedback as the high bidder:

http://myworld.ebay.com/historical-items

If you go to the feedback page for historical-items, under “view more options” select “view ID history” (you must be signed in to see this). It turns out that keya-gallery was the previous ID… so apparently eBay cancelled the auction because both the seller and the high bidder were the same person! Of course, everyone is free to draw their own conclusions as to what Keya Morgan is up to. I don’t think there should be a section about this video in the article for reasons that the selling and bidding activity on eBay should make obvious – clearly it’s strong evidence that the story about the video and the subsequent auction on eBay were mere publicity tactics, and not very effective ones it would seem. Aslpt (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Aslpt, are you accusing me of a crime? Everything you wrote is a defamatory lie. I own and operate the user ID of fine-estates7 on ebay which sold the Marilyn Monroe copyright. I have been in business for 25 years and have sold on ebay for many years (as you can tell by my user id date). Are you accusing me of a crime which is shill biding or price fixing? I am NOT related to "Historical-items", Morgan, or his Gallery. How dare you accuse me? I WAS NOT SUSPENDED and did NOT get involved in shill biding as you falsely accuse me (I just have to put my new credit card on file and pay the bill). The news articles were about the original film that Morgan bought for $275,000. not the copyright that I sold. If you want to badmouth and libel Morgan, don't involve me in it.--Fine-estate7 (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ps-The item was NOT removed by ebay, so everything you wrote was a lie. I placed my new credit card on file and you can see the auction did very well and ended and is still up! Shame on you for spreading lies. Plus this is not about Marilyn Monroe, this is about you makeing up crazy lies and spreading them.--Fine-estate7 (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please take this elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a message board, this conversation has ceased to be about improving the Marilyn Monroe article and is now bordering on being disruptive. Please review Wikipedias policies about no personal attacks and assuming good faith and conduct yourselves accordingly. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree--Fine-estate7 (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There were a couple of criticisms regarding the relevance of the information above to improving the Marilyn Monroe article, so let me clarify my reasons for posting the information about the auction of the video. Gazoli9 had suggested including a section about “her smoking pot and the video Keya Morgan bought.” I am among those who do not think such a section should be included in the article, and part of my reasoning is that I believe the whole thing to be nothing more than a publicity stunt, an as such does not belong in the article. A close look at who the high bidder of the auction of the video was, and who the seller was, supports this. Again, one need only look at the “View ID History” of the high bidder, historical-items under “Member Quick Links” - “View more options” to make the connection between the seller and the high bidder. It should also be made clear that Gazoli9 and Fine-estate7 have been blocked from Wikipedia and connected to accounts used by the memorabilia collector in question, as have Jil492868, GeneKellyusa483, and Sfdheu7362 who attempted to divert attention away from the “smoking pot” discussion once it turned sour by making a few suggestions for "improvements" below. Just see: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Johnyajohn/Archive Aslpt (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2010 (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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5