creating a timeline for future reference |
moving to archive to make space |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
{{talkheader}} |
{{talkheader}} |
||
*talk page [[/archive|archive]] |
*talk page [[/archive|archive]] |
||
== Jewish == |
|||
Shes jewish by race or religion. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.23.226.157|70.23.226.157]] ([[User talk:70.23.226.157|talk]]) 02:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
The article says: |
|||
Nominally raised as a Christian, she converted to Judaism before marrying Miller. |
|||
So she was no ethnic Jew. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.36.198.72|91.36.198.72]] ([[User talk:91.36.198.72|talk]]) 16:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I think she went back to being Christian after she left Miller.--[[User:Star-in-law|Star-in-law]] ([[User talk:Star-in-law|talk]]) 07:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Cultural icon== |
|||
Monroe is referred to, almost ''de riguer'' as a "cultural icon", so it's a little ridiculous to be championing its removal from this article. [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/390235/Marilyn-Monroe Encyclopedia Brittanica] refers to her by that term, as does the [[Cultural icon|wiki article on "cultural icons"]], not to mention the [http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/133624/Marilyn-Monroe-Life-After-Death/overview New York Times] ([http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07EFD91039F93AA15757C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all frequently]). [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:The recent references to Monroe are to her as fellating star of something one Keya Morgan claims to have fobbed off for $1.5MB, not as a cultural icon. |
|||
:''This'' article starts by referring to Monroe as a ''Hollywood icon, cultural icon, beauty ideal, fashion icon, pop icon and sex symbol.'' (And I'd always thought she was an actress and occasional crooner.) What does "cultural icon" ''mean'' that's not explained by one or more of the others? Indeed, what does "cultural icon" mean at all? I skimread [[cultural icon|its article]] and don't understand. And I glanced at the single source and it's some graphic designer's PhD-in-progress so gave up. |
|||
:Or is there some rule that if ''Britannica'' attaches an impressive but vacant buzzword to a subject, Wikipedia should do so as well? -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 15:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I completely agree that some of these terms are meaningless and "vacant". I also think that our NPOV aims are not necessarily shared by other sites, and that using another site as a source does not legitimise it or sidestep NPOV. Even if the other source is "Britannica". (I've noticed that despite their criticisism of Wikipedia, they are happy to use flowery and meaningless adjectives in the their film biography articles, that we would not encourage here.) I am glad you made this comment. I've commented further below. [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] ([[User talk:Rossrs|talk]]) 03:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Was Marylin Monroe blonde? == |
|||
It seems mind boggling to read the paragraph in this article as quoted: |
|||
'He encouraged her to apply to the The Blue Book modeling agency. She signed with the agency and began researching the work of famous actresses Jean Harlow and Lana Turner. Monroe enrolled in drama and singing classes and had her hair cut, straightened and lightened to golden blonde.[14]' |
|||
And then see the black and white photograph of her during the marriage to Dougherty or while she was working at Radioplane Company. Are there any clear color photographs of her before she worked for the Blue Book modeling agency? Was she originally a dark blonde, or a brunette? [[Special:Contributions/4.242.174.43|4.242.174.43]] ([[User talk:4.242.174.43|talk]]) 12:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Good question! It has always been my understanding that she was somewhere in between. I have read in books sentences such as "her hair was a dark blond, almost brown and long and heavy in its ringlets". Andre de Dienes, Jim Dougherty and David Conover in their books called her an "ash blond", Emmeline Snively said she was a "dirty blond which photographs much too brunette" and I also read she called her a "California Blond, dark in the Winter, light in the Summer when the sun bleached it". Etc, etc. Sometimes you will see pics (esp. shoots done by Conover & de Dienes) taken on the same day but because of lighting in some she appears blonde and in others more of a light brunette. So I guess it's a matter of opinion! For me she was a dishwater blond which photographed sometimes brunette. In some pictures she looks to have not an ash hue but almost reddish! Again, a matter of opinion. What is unquestionable is that she was born blond (and childhood pictures show her to have VERY blond hair, similar to the "Marilyn Monroe blond")until puberty when it began to darken and that she was told by Miss Snively to lighten her hair to a golden blond and have it cut and straightened. I hope this helps. :-)[[User:Crcam|Crcam]] ([[User talk:Crcam|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 01:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Marilyn Monroe wine== |
|||
Do you think there should be a section about the Marilyn Monroe wine and other products?--[[User:Star-in-law|Star-in-law]] ([[User talk:Star-in-law|talk]]) 07:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:No. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 10:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Marilyn lovers== |
|||
Should there be a section about her lovers?--[[User:Star-in-law|Star-in-law]] ([[User talk:Star-in-law|talk]]) 07:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:No. But any who had a proven effect on her film work should be mentioned. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 10:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Porn film tittle-tattle== |
|||
I was away from this article, such stuff as [http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/01/969700.aspx this] came out -- by an "NBC News Senior Investigative Producer"; does NBC really think that obvious crapola such as Morgan's unsubstantiated claim of the sale of a porno film from one unnamed person to another is the best use of a "Senior Investigative Producer"? -- and I return to find that the article in this "encyclopedia" still devotes an entire section to this stuff. |
|||
The titillating claim at the end of it that ''Though there is an FBI document addressed to J. Edgar Hoover indicating that a "French type" film of Monroe "committing a perverted act upon an unknown male" was seen by an informant in 1965, and that Joe DiMaggio had offered $25,000 to obtain the film'' is sourced to [http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/monroe.htm foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/monroe.htm]. But this page says no such thing; all it says is ''Marilyn Monroe / 97 pages / This FBI material concerning Marilyn Monroe contains published information concerning her alleged affairs and circumstances surrounding her death.'' |
|||
If this non-story still merits a section (which I don't believe), then I suggest changing "memorabilia collector" to "memorabilia dealer", and sourcing the FBI tittle-tattle more usefully and moving it up, so that the section ends with what's now ''Certain sources had doubts about the authenticity of the film and the broker who handled the alleged sale,'' rephrased as ''The dealer's claims have not been substantiated by any evidence and are widely discredited.'' -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 10:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Not sure if it should stay or not, but the page does exist and it is one of the last three pages of the 97 pages on the FBI site. The letter is address to the "director" (who is J. Edgar Hoover) of the FBI by an agent and is dated 1965. It's also posted in dozens of main stream media such as the cover of the New York Post [http://www.nypost.com/seven/04142008/news/regionalnews/hard_core_marilyn_106443.htm April 14, 2008] and Reuters [http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN1448222320080415 Marilyn Monroe sex film to be kept private]. |
|||
::Not to defend the Morgan guy who sold it, but the guy has bought dozens of the most important collections, such as the Joe DiMaggio estate stuff, and Marilyn Monroe estates items in 1999, and his collection was on the cover of Time magazine, New York Times, plus he’s put collections together for the White House and Congress [http://www.keyagallery.com/news.htm White House letter]. MSNBC did not actually view the film, and scientifically it would be impossible for them or FBI to disprove something they did not see. Plus, the same article states that NBC who wrote the article is trying to strike a deal with him as a producer, so there may be some other motives involved, strange. I am not saying the film is real, just that logically something could not be disproved unless it is seen. Plus, what if the film is authentic?--[[User:Star-in-law|Star-in-law]] ([[User talk:Star-in-law|talk]]) 19:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::''[T]he page does exist and it is one of the last three pages of the 97 pages on the FBI site.'' Then let's have a precise URL. |
|||
:::A better URL for the Reuters story is [http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN1448222320080415?sp=true this]. It merely refers to the FBI material. It does not post any letter. (I didn't bother looking at the ''NY Post'' page.) |
|||
:::The claims you make for Morgan are based on claims Morgan makes for himself. |
|||
:::MSNBC hasn't claimed anything. With no more important news to investigate -- and perhaps Michael Moore's next film should look into the fatuousness of the US infotainment industry -- an "NBC News Senior Investigative Producer" found no evidence for the existence of the film. |
|||
:::Listen, just last week I negotiated the sale of a live [[dodo]] from one collector who wishes to remain anonymous to another who wishes to remain anonymous. (Note for the young and easily excited: dodoes aren't the same as dildoes.) And since you didn't see the dodo, scientifically it would be impossible for you to -- |
|||
:::No, that's ludicrous. I made a claim that I sold a dodo. Nobody expects you to see the dodo in order to prove that the dodo doesn't exist. Instead, they expect you to wield [[Occam's razor]] on this cock-and-bull story: the onus is on ''me'' to provide proof for any of this. |
|||
:::Morgan has provided no evidence. Apparently there's a single reference ''indicating that a "French type" film of Monroe "committing a perverted act upon an unknown male" was seen by an informant in 1965.'' (NB this says it was seen by an informant, not by any FBI employee.) And that's all there is, although you say it's quoted here and there. |
|||
:::Meanwhile, Morgan has been obviously and rather desperately hawking some schlockumentary about Monroe. He'd have an obvious motive for getting himself quoted in the mass media. |
|||
:::''Plus, what if the film is authentic?'' You mean, what if there were a genuine, undoctored film of Monroe giving Kennedy a blowjob? A reasonable question, and one I answered a month or so ago, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marilyn_Monroe&oldid=205800296#Sex_tape_section here]. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Star-in-law, I wouldn’t be so impressed with the claims that Keya Morgan makes on his own website. Clearly he has a habit of making up some pretty tall tales. There was a whole discussion about this which you archived after you made your changes to the article. It’s best to not archive a discussion about a section that’s still being worked on, since it’s obviously still relevant. As for the not being able to logically prove that something that hasn’t been seen doesn’t exist… well I’m sure that’s the same faulty logic that Morgan thought would help make his publicity stunt float. I’m sure now that it’s been exposed as a hoax he’s trying to do some damage control and make it all go away, but since it’s still being covered by the media it should still be mentioned here. [[User:Teleomatic|Teleomatic]] ([[User talk:Teleomatic|talk]]) 12:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think the best question is WHO CARES even is there was such a film. We all know Marilyn Monroe was probably very talented at blowjobs, but she is dead for the past 50 years. I can't believe the media cares so much, I saw this crap on every station, it was all over the place and on CNN. I can't believe they would waste so much time being obsessed over a sex tape. God, what is the world coming to? It reminds me of the Bill Clinton scandal and the Paris Hilton crap.--[[User:Star-in-law|Star-in-law]] ([[User talk:Star-in-law|talk]]) 06:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
This again? I thought we settled this satisfactorily? Anyway, yeah, there is a 99.999...(repeating) percent chance that Morgan's claims are bullshit '''but''' they have been reported very, very widely in a large number of major media sources, and are therefore notable, if only to report the existence of the claims and their prevalence, dubious though they may be. It's like conspiracy theories, which are basically silly stories made up by liars and crazy people. We don't have to report them as truth, but if we are to be a serious encyclopedia, we must report on the ''existence'' of such things. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, FMF, I think that you and I have different conceptions of what constitutes very, very wide reporting in a large number of major media sources. Certainly this non-story was written up in a non-trivial number of newspapers: Reuters (inexplicably) took it seriously, whereby it got into some newspapers worth reading, and of course it was also taken up by the tabloids. My impression is that it made far less of an impact than great steaming piles of other sleb non-stories as, say, Britney Spears having all her hair cut off. Morgan's claim that he sold a film is just one non-story in a million. |
|||
:Repeat from above: If this non-story still merits a section (which I don't believe), then I suggest changing "memorabilia collector" to "memorabilia dealer", and sourcing the FBI tittle-tattle more usefully and moving it up, so that the section ends with what's now ''Certain sources had doubts about the authenticity of the film and the broker who handled the alleged sale,'' rephrased as ''The dealer's claims have not been substantiated by any evidence and are widely discredited.'' Would that be OK? |
|||
:(Incidentally, I'm still waiting for a more precise URL for the FBI doc that says some informant said blah blah blah.) -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 23:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: Hoary, I understand you really dislike the Morgan guy, but there absolutely is an FBI document addressed to J. Edgar Hoover indicating that a "French type" film of Monroe "committing a perverted act upon an unknown male" was seen by an informant in 1965, and that Joe DiMaggio had offered $25,000 to obtain the film. That is a fact and the link is correct. |
|||
::: Also "widely discredited" would be wrong. Reuters, CNN, New York Post, Fox New, ABC, NBC, CBS, Today show, MSNBC, the Washington post, and thousands of other reputable sources all said it was authentic and never changed there report. CNN even said they saw the sales document and some proof. The report that was on the MSNBC website does not say the video sold was not authentic, they only state that the FBI claims it does not have a copy (I don't believe anything the FBI says!). The Morgan guy is in hundreds of books and newspapers, TV show, etc. as a "collector". It is obvious you really hate this guy, but lets look at the facts. I don't know if it is really Marilyn on the tape, but FBI document from the 1960s does speak of a tape, so all the mainstream news may be right?--[[User:Star-in-law|Star-in-law]] ([[User talk:Star-in-law|talk]]) 09:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Yikes. I don't absolutely hate Morgan. I don't hate him. I don't even dislike him. I have next to no interest in him, though I do find his desperation to be photographed (cynics have alleged photoshopped) next to slebs rather amusing. |
|||
:::: I have repeatedly read of this FBI document. The article still points to [http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/monroe.htm foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/monroe.htm] for it. Again, this says nothing. So, I've just now clicked the link from it to [http://foia.fbi.gov/monroe/monroe2.pdf foia.fbi.gov/monroe/monroe2.pdf], 3.7 MB of cloak 'n' dagger, seemingly from an overworked server or anyway a slow one. Right, it's on the last page of that. It does ''not'' say that DiMaggio had offered 25 grand; it says instead that ''According to [blacked out] claimed that former baseball star JOSEPH DI MAGGIO [sic] in the past had offered him $25,000 for this film [...].'' Now, "according to [name] claimed that" is syntactically impossible, and there are all sorts of possibilities. These are enriched by the start of this exciting letter, which makes it clear that at least three people are involved, and suggests that all three are shady: stoolies, or smut-peddlers, or conmen, or a mixture thereof. |
|||
:::: You say ''Reuters, CNN, New York Post, Fox New, ABC, NBC, CBS, Today show, MSNBC, the Washington post, and thousands of other reputable sources all said it was authentic and never changed there report.'' Let's discount the TV shows. I don't remember seeing any article that said anything was authentic. All I remember them doing was uncritically citing Morgan, directly or indirectly, and perhaps tricking this out with a reference to the letter that's at the end of this PDF file. And of course they didn't change their reports: there's no risk of libel if the story was mistaken, and the masses' interests have presumably moved on. |
|||
:::: You say ''The Morgan guy is in hundreds of books and newspapers, TV show, etc. as a "collector".'' Forget the TV shows. Which hundreds of books and newspapers? |
|||
:::: You say: ''I don't know if it is really Marilyn on the tape, but FBI document from the 1960s does speak of a tape, so all the mainstream news may be right?'' Actually the FBI document speaks of a "motion picture". Yes, it may exist. Yes, Morgan might have bought it and might have sold it. ''Where's the evidence?'' It all looks like crap to me, as some fellow called Star-in-law memorably phrased it in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMarilyn_Monroe&diff=212056128&oldid=212005799 this recent edit]. |
|||
:::: I wonder if some "memorabilia collector" will next pop up to claim a sale -- strictly between honorably-intentioned if necessarily anonymous collectors of historical memorabilia, of course! -- of stockpiles of [[WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War|Iraqi weapons of mass destruction]]. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 10:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::: It appears that [[User:Star-in-law]] is currently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AStar-in-law indisposed], being the latest incarnation of banned user Octavian history/Persian history, etc. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn]. I'm undoing his "improvements" to the article, and we can go from there. I do think the phrasing you suggested above is appropriate. As for the world's most photoshopped <s>porn peddler</s> memorabilia collector, I wouldn't fill his head with ideas about what stunts to pull next. [[User:Teleomatic|Teleomatic]] ([[User talk:Teleomatic|talk]]) 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I can't help but point out that he repeatedly made reference to the FBI document, only to later claim "I don't believe anything the FBI says." -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Sounds like someone's trying to run up the price of something grainy and out of focus. More flogging of codswallop to the down market over the faded images of dead celebrities if you ask me (erm, yeah, I guess someone did ask!) [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 03:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Whereupon Gwen deleted a large section of it. Something clearly went wrong, but I'm pretty sure she intended to delete the whole section. I went in and deleted the remaining half of it. |
|||
In its final stage, it was nowhere near as awful as it had been a little earlier. If there's evidence that more than a tiny number of people remember this non-news and might come to en:WP to look it up, then I suppose it might be plonked within some wikiwastebin such as [[Marilyn Monroe in popular culture]]. Anyway, you see it below. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 12:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks Hoary, yes, I'd meant to rm it all. |
|||
:::The below was ok but for [[WP:WEIGHT]]: The encyclopedic bearing of this dead celebrity scam (over 45 years after she died) on her career and pop-cultural legacy as described in an article of this length is less than zero. Meanwhile if [[Keya Morgan]] meets Wikipedia's notability standards enough for a BLP, now or later, this content could easily go there. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 12:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::It may have been in the news, but this is an encyclopedia and must have a certain level of academic value. Who cares if some guy says that someone else said the Marilyn sucked some guys ****. I don't care if its a real story or not, if Marilyn sucked some guy off or not. I just don't see the academic value. Sorry thats just me :) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ae2578277|Ae2578277]] ([[User talk:Ae2578277|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ae2578277|contribs]]) 05:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fee; padding:20px; margin:20px 0 20px 0"> |
|||
<nowiki>===Pornographic film claims===</nowiki> |
|||
None have ever been confirmed to exist but it has long been rumored or claimed that Monroe appeared in some pornographic films. The October 1980 issue of ''[[Penthouse]]'' publicized a 1948 stag film called ''Apple Knockers & Coke'' which features a woman who looks similar to Monroe but was later identified as [[Arline Hunter]] ([[Playmate of the Month]] for August 1954).<ref>[http://www.monroemovie.com/mm/main3.htm MonroeMovie.com, page 3]; [http://www.monroemovie.com/mm/main5.htm MonroeMovie.com, page 5]</ref> |
|||
On April 14, 2008 a story published in the ''[[New York Post]]'' and [[Reuters]] reported that a memorabilia collector claimed to have brokered the $1.5 million sale of a 15-minute black and white [[16mm film]] of Monroe performing oral sex on an unidentified man.<ref>{{cite news |
|||
| last = Gittens |
|||
| first = Hasani |
|||
| coauthors = |
|||
| title = Hardcore Marilyn:FBI's Monroe Sex Flick Sold for $1.5M |
|||
| work = |
|||
| pages = |
|||
| language = |
|||
| publisher = [[New York Post]] |
|||
| date = 2008-04-14 |
|||
| url = http://www.nypost.com/seven/04142008/news/regionalnews/hard_core_marilyn_106443.htm |
|||
| accessdate = 2008-04-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN1448222320080415|title=Marilyn Monroe sex film to be kept private|last=Trotta|first=Daniel |date=2008-04-15|publisher=Reuters|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref> However, the collector refused to identify the seller or buyer, or present any evidence of the sale or the film's existence and the claims were quickly exposed as a hoax.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0418081monroe1.html|title=Marilyn Monroe Sex Film Hoax: FBI documents contradict broker's unsubstantiated claims about reel|date=2008-04-18|publisher=[[The Smoking Gun]]|accessdate=2008-04-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/04/marilyn-monroe-keya-morgan-15-minutes-french-style-film.php|title=How to Create a Marilyn Myth|last=Gray|first=Tyler|date=2008-04-18|publisher=[[Radar Magazine]]|accessdate=2008-04-19}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/01/969700.aspx|title=FBI: No Marilyn Monroe sex film|last=Popkin|first=Jim |date=2008-05-01|publisher=NBC|accessdate=2008-05-03}}</ref> [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] documents report that in 1965 an informant claimed to have seen a "French type" film of Monroe but various writers doubt this refers to a genuine film featuring Monroe.<ref>For the documents, see the last three pages of [http://foia.fbi.gov/monroe/monroe2.pdf this PDF file] (retrieved 2008-05-15); for the skepticism, see for example Mark Bellinghaus, Ernest W. Cunningham and Jennifer J. Dickinson, [http://defamer.com/380219/exclusive-debunking-the-marilyn-monroe-sex-tape-hoax Debunking The Marilyn Monroe 'Sex Tape' Hoax], [[Gawker Media|Defamer.com]], 2008 (retrieved 2008-04-15). Bellinghaus, Cunningham and Dickinson are respectively a collector, the author of ''The Ultimate Marilyn,'' and a journalist.</ref> |
|||
<references /> |
|||
</div> |
|||
Strongly disagree with the removal of this material. As with [[conspiracy theories]], the ''persistent rumor'' and reporting in a broad cross-section of media is what is being reported on. Yeah, it's widely discredited, yeah, it's bullshit. But it's in (non-tabloid) newspapers, it's on television, it's in that Smoking Gun book that my bookstore has a pile of. It is a thing about which someone might read and say, "Wait, what? Is that real?" It'd be nice to have a definitive answer instead of telling our readers to take their unseemly curiosity elsewhere. As far as [[WP:WEIGHT]] goes, the section is incrementally longer than I think it needs to be, but not egregiously. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 10:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:As for newspapers and TV, is this non-story really in/on them? I thought it had been in/on them, but that it had quickly been supplanted by some other gossip. If you really think that something is necessary, how about the following within some section on apocrypha? -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 15:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with what Hoary wrote before about not having it in the article. It may have been in the news, but this is an encyclopedia and must have a certain level of academic value. Who cares if some guy says that someone else said the Marilyn sucked some guys ****. Is this a real story? Maybe it should be in the porn section? I don't care if its a real story or not, if Marilyn sucked some guy off or not. I just don't see the academic value of a blow*ob story. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ae2578277|Ae2578277]] ([[User talk:Ae2578277|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ae2578277|contribs]]) 05:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fee; padding:20px; margin:20px 0 20px 0"> |
|||
It has long been said that Monroe appeared in some pornographic films. The October 1980 issue of ''[[Penthouse]]'' publicized a 1948 stag film called ''Apple Knockers & Coke,'' but the woman was later identified as [[Arline Hunter]].<ref>[http://www.monroemovie.com/mm/main3.htm MonroeMovie.com, page 3]; [http://www.monroemovie.com/mm/main5.htm MonroeMovie.com, page 5]</ref> On [[April 14]], [[2008]] a story in the ''[[New York Post]]'' and [[Reuters]] reported that a memorabilia dealer claimed to have brokered the $1.5 million sale of a 15-minute black and white [[16mm film]] of Monroe performing oral sex on an unidentified man.<ref>{{cite news |
|||
| last = Gittens |
|||
| first = Hasani |
|||
| coauthors = |
|||
| title = Hardcore Marilyn:FBI's Monroe Sex Flick Sold for $1.5M |
|||
| work = |
|||
| pages = |
|||
| language = |
|||
| publisher = [[New York Post]] |
|||
| date = 2008-04-14 |
|||
| url = http://www.nypost.com/seven/04142008/news/regionalnews/hard_core_marilyn_106443.htm |
|||
| accessdate = 2008-04-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN1448222320080415|title=Marilyn Monroe sex film to be kept private|last=Trotta|first=Daniel |date=2008-04-15|publisher=Reuters|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref> However, the dealer refused to identify the seller or buyer or to present any evidence of the sale or the film's existence, and the claims were quickly dismissed as a hoax.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0418081monroe1.html|title=Marilyn Monroe Sex Film Hoax: FBI documents contradict broker's unsubstantiated claims about reel|date=2008-04-18|publisher=[[The Smoking Gun]]|accessdate=2008-04-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/04/marilyn-monroe-keya-morgan-15-minutes-french-style-film.php|title=How to Create a Marilyn Myth|last=Gray|first=Tyler|date=2008-04-18|publisher=[[Radar Magazine]]|accessdate=2008-04-19}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/01/969700.aspx|title=FBI: No Marilyn Monroe sex film|last=Popkin|first=Jim |date=2008-05-01|publisher=NBC|accessdate=2008-05-03}}</ref> [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] documents show that in 1965 an informant claimed to have seen a "French type" film of Monroe<ref>See the last three pages of [http://foia.fbi.gov/monroe/monroe2.pdf this PDF file] (retrieved 2008-05-15).</ref> but various writers doubt this refers to a genuine film featuring Monroe.<ref>For example Mark Bellinghaus, Ernest W. Cunningham and Jennifer J. Dickinson, [http://defamer.com/380219/exclusive-debunking-the-marilyn-monroe-sex-tape-hoax Debunking The Marilyn Monroe 'Sex Tape' Hoax], [[Gawker Media|Defamer.com]], 2008 (retrieved 2008-04-15).</ref> |
|||
<references /> |
|||
</div> |
|||
Well, that's pretty much what it was before, no? I thought that that was a satisfactory version that addressed my concern we were throwing away information that "wasn't good enough", and does not stretch the boundaries of [[WP:WEIGHT]]. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 17:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Lol!, I can't beleive we have all this text about if some woman sucked some guys **** 50 years ago. Is this funny or what? What a sick world. I agree with what Hoary wrote before about not having it in the article. It may have been in the news, but its really sick, and the media is even more sick! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ae2578277|Ae2578277]] ([[User talk:Ae2578277|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ae2578277|contribs]]) 05:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I'm still for inclusion at this point. Either version seems fine to me, though the second is more concise and yet retains all the references so that one may be preferable. [[User:Teleomatic|Teleomatic]] ([[User talk:Teleomatic|talk]]) 03:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Body Type == |
== Body Type == |
Revision as of 18:57, 5 July 2008
Biography: Actors and Filmmakers B‑class | ||||||||||
|
California B‑class | ||||||||||
|
Pornography B‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
- talk page archive
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.
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 1926: June 1 born. June 13. Placed in foster care.
- 1933: mid year - returns to her mother.
- 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
- 1941: June, graduates high school
- 1942: June 19, marries Jim 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
- 1952: Mar - starts dating Joe Di Maggio, Mar - nude calendar scandal, Arp - cover of Life, Jun - Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Sep - Grand Marshall at Miss America
- 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
- 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, Aug 3, Life magazine cover, Aug 5 - body discovered, Aug 8 - funeral.