Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Playboy data

The Playboy article says that she was the first centerfold. What is correct? - User:Olivier

first cover gril second ceterfold

---

No, in the first issue she was on the cover and in the "centerfold", such as it was. Wahkeenah 12:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polydactyl?

She might not have been polydactyl, but the polydactyly page does have a whole section on her, hence the link. If we're getting rid of the link, maybe the section should be put here too, or at least some context to the link should be given and the link retained. -Nommo

For the time being I've copied the paragraph from polydactyly to the Marilyn Monroe page. It's fleshed the article out a bit more at least. -Nommo

---

Career and Spouses

The biography section has almost nothing about her career, which is why she is a celebrity in the first place. And I moved this stuff below from the main page, as it belongs here anyways:

mention some husbands, such as Joe DiMaggio and Arthur Miller; personal style, manner of death, Andy Warhol and her affairs with many men.

The husbands has just been added, but more needs to be said. —Frecklefoot 15:37, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Reason for removal

I removed the below paragraph from the article:

Marilyn Monroe's face appears on several posters in the second level of the video game Shinobi.

In the first place, it was in the wrong section—it should've been in the "Trivia" section. But more importantly, Monroe is a pop culture icon—her image is represented in millions of places. I don't think it is necessary to mention them all. —Frecklefoot 18:08, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Gladys Who? Della Who?

I think there are Bakers in there.

---

Mrs Eunice Wright, disappeared before she could record a statement and was reported to have come into good money and relocated to Europe. I googled abit to see what happened with mrs Eunice, but can't find a thing. Anyone know anything about it. Who was Pat Newcomb and how was she related to her?

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Awful Language

The language in this article is awful, gushing tripe. Why does the 'Early Life' article start with:

"She's the most famous star in Hollywood history. An actress whose magical screen presence, phenomenal sex appeal and radiant charm is still felt today and copied by everyone from Madonna to Paris Hilton. And although she is still feted around the world as the leading lady of the 20th Century, her humble beginnings couldn't have been more different."

The italic 'the' is unnecessary. The use of words like 'magical' and 'radiant' scan like some terrible Biography channel script. Everything that's wrong with this infuriating website is contained within this article.

Not only that, but what is the big deal with Marilyn Monroe, anyway? Admittedly, she was a little before my time, but so were Grace Kelly and Ingrid Bergman, and they were truly hot. Marilyn's supposed attractiveness was based largely on being a childlike idiot. Maybe a lot of men of that era were into that. God only knows why. But her failed marriages point to the fact that the novelty of her scatterbrained nature soon wore out its welcome. Wahkeenah 12:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actor vs. Actress ?

Someone recently changed it from "actor" to "actress". This is an interesting and debatable point. In recent years, women in the business have been calling themselves "actors" more and more frequently. However, "actress" is still used frequently also... which is kind of odd, because a female director of a movie is typically not called a "directress". Wahkeenah 30 June 2005 08:43 (UTC)

I thought about reverting it again, but it seems here that it is intended to be a generic. Being compared to all others that act, called actors. In a mixed gender group, the male term is used (Just like almost every language on the planet, it's not sexist, it's grammar).

Copywrited photos?

First of all, someone went nuts on the photos - too many. And some are just plain copywrite violations, am I right?

Albert or Wayne?

In the Early life section the foster parents are mentioned. First the man is called Albert, but 2 other times he is called Wayne. Which is his real name? - Jóna Þórunn, Iceland. --81.15.36.126 21:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Norma Jean(e) spelling inaccuracy

There's still a mess in the article with her real name referring to Norma JEAN and JEANE with an E. Even pop songs ("Norma Jean wants to be a movie star", Cunningham, 1974) never spell her with an e at the end. Could this article at least be accurate with respect to this? Frankly: I do not know the right spelling either. But it should really be one and the same, not a mix. -andy 80.129.105.231 10:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"Celebrity Morgue"

A possible inclusion for the article: [1] --AWF

Vandlism on in Early Years Section

First line: "Marilyn Monroe murdered Elvis Presley in his home. She slept with him, and soon found out he was married, so she killed himm while having sex in the bathroom."

Yeesh. Vandalism is bad enough, but this isn't even remotely funny or intelligent. --AWF

Orphanage Inconsistency

Guys, there is a major paradox in her early life. It says that she was sent to orphangages in LA when the Goddard's moved east and that she was sexually abused at the orphanages. Then it says she was with the Goddard's at the time she met James Dougherty (check out James Dougherty, it says the same). So which was it? Did she meet James so she wouldn't have to go to the orphanages, or was she already in the orphanages? CHB 15:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

She was with grace and ervin but then she got sent away to an orphanage she them came back to grace and ervin, when ervin tried to molest her grace sent her away to the mother of one of her auntys but then he cousin tried to assualt her so grace sent her away to her aunty ana lower, ana then got health problems, so marilyn got sent back to grace and ervin, they had new neighbours they were the dougherty family (thats when she met jim dougherty not james dougherty).

the tape

• Marilyn Monroe, American actress, singer, sex symbol, had at least one sexual experience with another woman, as quoted from tapes to her psycologist that have since been released to the public.

I removed this from the [[List of famous gay,--70.135.3.145 15:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC) lesbian or bisexual people]] because of a criteria on that article which requires that anyone listed there must have a reference to sexual orientation on their biography page. One reason is so that editors familiar with the subject can evaluate the claim. Is the tape considered a reliable source? Should this be added here too? -Willmcw 08:13, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of Tapes, there are copy of tapes available and all the legal docs from the clerk of courts on Barbara Monroe, the woman who has legal and federal documents providing a large amount of information proving her blood line. It's rummorred that she also has a tape recording of the actual social security call, along with phone records, and documentation mailed to her from them in post marked packaging. Does anyone know where I can actually get my hands on this stuff, short of going county to county.

i was just thinking about how i read in the atlantic magazine a few months ago about that. yes, it's a reliable source and i think it should be included. Joeyramoney 23:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have also heard about something like this. Marilyn (Norma Jeane) was raped at the age of 6, in one of her foster homes. There was something else, but I cannot remember right this moment. XRachelxDollx 10:29, 28 April 2007 (GMT+1)

Article improvement

I have just polished the language style up to (not including) the death to try and make it slightly more encyclopedia-like rather than biographical. I hope it's a little bit of an improvement. Arnie587 01:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

66.157.27.68 20:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Okay, so I happened to notice that My Sister, Marilyn Allouce and Marilyn's "autobiography" are constantly used throughout the article. These are hardly reputable sources. Could someone fix this?

Anomaly

The article contains a non-sensical couple of sentences in the 6th paragraph of the marriage section:

On February 4, 1961, she was admitted by her then-psychiatrist into Manhattan's Payne-Whitney Clinic, reportedly placed in the ward for the most seriously disturbed. He got her out six days later, and took her to the Payne Whitney Psychiatric Clinic at New York Presbyterian Hospital

Does anyone have the necessary information to correct this? Arnie587 01:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Gallery

As a previous poster commented, this article has a goofy number of images. The following two overlap so I'm moving them here in accordance with Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_queuing. --squirrel 20:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [[:Image:AllAboutEve.jpeg|thumb|left|210px|On set for All About Eve]] [[:Image:DBTK09.jpg|thumb|left|210px|A screenshot from Don't Bother to Knock]]

• On a similar note, galleries of fair use images are not allowed, because all fair use images are supposed to be referred to from the text itself. See Wikipedia:Fair use for fair use guidelines. --Fastfission 03:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't believe that folks don't know what Monroe looks like, so unless we're actually commenting on the photos themselves I don't see any reason for filling the article with images. -Willmcw 04:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Given that her image is such an integral part of what she represents to the culture, an image gallery is entirely appropriate. The fair use guidelines are beyond my understanding at this time, but need to be followed. The article was better with the image gallery. This is not a paper encyclopedia and we are not in any way restricted to text only. The images used were iconic images entirely appropriate and they should be put back.—Gaff ^ταλκ 05:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The images are all private property, and posting them here violates the copyrights of the owners. In certain special circumstances an exception is allowed in the copyright law, "fair use", but that exception mostly pertains only when we are discussing the photos themselves, rather than just the subject of the photos. So if we offered criticism of the photos such as talking about their lighting and composition then we'd be justified in using them. However doing so would violate Wikipedia's rule against original research and other aspects of what Wikipedia is not. If you can find any public domain photos, then there'd be less of a reason to exclude them. -Willmcw 05:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Easy way to shorten this article

Could someone move the whole Quotations section into Wikiquote to shorten this article? Yoninah 21:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If it hasn't already been done by the time I reach it during my gradual copyedit of the article, I'll do so.

Best wishes,  David Kernow 06:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

RFK

There is not a single credentialed historian that I have seen -- critical or supportive -- who believes MM and RFK had an affair. There are critical and supportive historians who refute this, pointing to J.E. Hoover's desire to have dirt on RFK and the fact that the younger Kennedy was morally clean. This in fact was a major frustration for JEH.

Who are you? When did you write this? Achilles2006 05:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Her mockery

She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show. He is a preacher and Evangelist and he drives expensive cars and has a huge expensive house that God paid for and the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her.

After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said: "I don't need YOUR Jesus"

A week later, she was found dead in her apartment.

Correction. A week later, she was found dead in her house.

So, I'm confused. Does this mean she was killed by God. The same one that paid for Billy Graham's house?Rossrs 01:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused too: I was under the impression that she hadn't made any public appearances for some time before her death (wasn't her appearance at Maddison Square Garden the last one, for JFK's birthday?). The story above is just silly and I have found no evidence that it can be the slightest bit true.--Nicole A. Jenkins 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Laurel Awards

Is it really necessary to include the rather insignificant Laurel Award rankings in the "Awards and Nominations" section? Practically every A-list star got a Laurel nod back then. Their inclusion only makes the list heavier and more blurry. --Downtownstar 15:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to oppose, I'm going to erase the Laurel Awards.--Downtownstar 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Name

In the first sentence, the article states she was born Norma Jeane Mortensen, and then in the next sentence, states that she was born Norma Jeane Baker. Further in the article, it mentions some disagreement between her family about what to name her. I don't know which should be left, so if anyone knows please correct. Sylvea

Done it. Her legal name was Mortensen. Sometimes the name shown on a baptism certificate is different from the legal name, and that's what happened here. But baptism certificates are church documents, not legal documents. They do not have the effect of changing the person's legal name. JackofOz 22:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Further in the article it states that she legally changed her name to Marilyn Monroe. Why is her birth name shown first?

This article follows the manual of style for biogrpahies. Birth name should appear first in the article, followed closely by the name which the subject is commonly known. Thanks. Yankees76 03:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If so, then why won't the article about Freddie Mercury (and million others) follow this rule? And in case of Marlyn Monroe it's not the name she's known as, it's her LEGAL name. It's extremely politically incorrect and offensive to the person to treat his or her birth name as the main name if that person has legally changed it to something new. Northern 23:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Since nobody seems to reply I'm changing it to Marilyn Monroe since that was her legal name at the time of her death.

Just because another article doesn't follow the rule, does not mean it's correct. A more appropriate course of action would be to actually consult the manual of style for biographies. The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described there, and Wikipedia articles should heed those guidelines. I've reverted your edits and made changes to more closely match WP:MOSBIO (using the Boris Karloff example). I've also removed her from the category "People known by pseudonyms". In the future, I would suggest that you don't assume that because other editors do not act in line with your own schedule that it gives you an open door to make whatever changes you wish - as other editors might mistake it for POV pushing or vandalism. Yankees76 03:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

First calm down. I need no suggestions from random people on the Internet.
I have never seen anything like that in any manual. If it's a PSEUDONYM, then yes but IT WAS HER LEGAL NAME. She has legally changed her name. If Joe Jonson has changed his name to Mike Miller than you can't refer to him as Joe Jonson because it's no longer his name. You can of course mention that it was his birth name but he is NO longer Joe and you can't call him this way.
If it's a nickname, then yeah. If it's a name a person picked just as a stage name such as Eminem or Gorkiy (a Russian writer), then of course it's just a pseudonym. But things are different if one has legally changed his/her name. I'll talk to moderators about it. What YOU'RE doing might as well be viewed as vandalism.
P.S I think this sentence is the one that confused you: "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the birth name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym."
If one legally changes his/her name, then the new name is not a pseudonym. It's a legal name. It's not covered by the manual
Oh, and yes I do have the right to change anything I want. I'm not vandalizing but contributing. I found something that looked like a mistake to me. How else am I, as a Wikipedian, supposed to react?
Ohh another P.S: read carefully the manual:
In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well:
William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) …
Northern 09:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you won't stop reversing, ah? Ok.

It looks like someone else did, so it appears your interpretation is up for debate. Also, drop the hostile tone and assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Putting in a vandalism complaint in WP:AIV after barely discussng your edits and imposing time limits on replies is extremely poor Wikiquette on your part. Yankees76 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I felt that you were being hostile as well. Happens a lot on Wikipedia
Northern 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly an excuse. And if you felt I was hostile - why put in a vandalism complaint? That makes no sense. Yankees76 03:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I first reverted the article from Marilyn Monroe to Norma Jeane Mortenson. The feedback I got was furious. (See my personal talk page.)

And now that I'm doing the exact opposite, I'm once again doing it wrong?

Come now, people - make up your mind. --Downtownstar 21:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Partly my fault. I assumed that Marilyn Monroe was a pseudonym (as this article was in the People known by pseudonyms category). Northern is correct in this instance, if as he claims, Marilyn Monroe legally changed her name in 1956 - I've tagged that aspect of article with a citation needed tag, as really it should be sourced. Yankees76 03:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it Marilyn Monroe. The manual is clear about it. Northern 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The manual is also clear about the fact that one should always, I repeat: always -

sign their comments.--Downtownstar 00:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bah. How exactly is that related to this talk or article? (Not that I don't sign mine) Northern 03:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's got everything to do with the article. Since you've obviously read the manual, you

should know. Now where's the signature?--Downtownstar 09:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

death

do you know that she commtitted suicide, but then as she felt hewrslef going under, she made a telephone call to someone because she changed her mind, but he didnt come, and instead call her psychiatrist, who then call the housekeeper to check on her. At about 3 am in the morining, she was found dead with her hand on the phone. the point is that she decided to commit suicide by taking and overdose of sleeping pills, but chnaged her mind and called a few people, who i forgot what their names were, but no one came and it was too late.

she was going through many bad things that time, and she had recently been fired, and she was aging... It is just very sad, because all those people who took her as an empty headed blonde, and all those people who tried to replace her.. she showed them.

When interviewed, all the women said that if they knew she was going to die, they would never have made any comments about her. she was also upset because she wanted children very badly, but she had many miscarriages.

I don't think the cause her death has been verified yet; no one's exactly sure. Remember to sign you posts, please. Snowonster 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

a person who died just like monroe

DOROTHY DANDRIDGE. research her and read her biography on wikipedia marilyn monroe did not die because of suicide it was proven in her autopsy (before it "disappared") that no pills were taken it showed in the documents that were saved from the autopsy that a yellowish lining wasnt in her stomach as it should've been if she overdosed on the pills they say she did(or any other medications)the autospy didn't get finished to find much of anu thing else. The only thing that was found out of the ordinary before the autopsy was stolen was that her colon was discolored... So dont ever say she died from an overdose of pills I've read way to many books and met way to many people for you to put her down like that, yes she was depressed at that time but she DIDN'T DO THAT she had been murdered (it wasnt an accident either) she had been moved and placed back on her bed ( when they found her, (yes her hand was on the phone) but she was also found laying straight" as a stick" (if you will)so you give me more evidence that she commited suicide and i'll look at it from your point of view.

I also don't believe that Marylin Monroe might not have died from a drug overdose, but it IS possible. Nobody knows for sure and nobody will EVER find out. Its one of the saddest mysteries.

"Most famous"

Is she the most famous? She has been called that... but I think we could use to temper the language... (not sure for how many versions it has been that way...) gren グレン 18:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What method should we use? "Marilyn Monroe has been cited as one of the most famous actresses of the twentieth-century"? —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It really is a matter of opinion, whichever way you look at it. I fixed the sentence a little, now it simply states she's one of the most famous.--Downtownstar 16:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, somebody keeps reverting the sentences back so that she's called "the most famous" and "the most bankable" star of all-time. These superlatives are clearly POV and there's absolutely no evidence to back up the "most bankable" claim. I'm not fixing them anymore because I don't want a war, but don't you think the expressions are rather unencyclopedic?--Downtownstar 15:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

They are completely unencyclopedic, completely inappropriate and inaccurate. I've reverted. For one thing she never became "the most bankable" - see the Quigley poll, regarded as one of the most credible barometers of an actor's success - [2] and you'll see Monroe never topped the list of top 10 bankable stars although she made the top 10 in 1953, 1954 and 1958.. Not all of her films were profitable, although many of them were. Much of Monroe's fame and certainly a large part of her iconic status have developed in the years since her death. This page is like many that become the domain of overzealous fans who should carefully read WP:POV and WP:NPOV. Rossrs 21:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

They have a point, though. She's almost always referred to as the most famous... Snowonster 02:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always understood Charles Chaplin as the "most famous" as his image has been suggested as the most internationally recognisable. I would suppose the only true contender to that title to be Elvis Presley, with Marilyn perhaps as third? This is supposition of course Joe Geshka 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Crypt picture

The crypt at the Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery

I uploaded a picture of the crypt where Marylin Monroe is buried. I linked to it from the Death of Marilyn Monroe article, but not sure if it should show up in htis article. Maybe if a few more words are added here about where she is buried. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comedic skills & witty lines

An observation from the few Monroe films I've seen - she seemed to have a consistent style of wit and brilliant delivery, from as early as All About Eve - but I'm wondering who wrote the lines? Did she have any input? Or did she get typecast, with writers continuing to write the same kinds of parts to play, and the same style of witty dialogue? I'm also thinking of her comment about her playboy shoot - "It's not true that I had nothing on. I had the radio on," which I had assumed she came up with herself, though I don't know. Anyone know more about this? --Singkong2005 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely you jest? smile. You asked who wrote the lines... Well, writers do. Snappy wit and wise-cracks was common in Hollywood long before Marilyn - take a look at some "pre-codes", "Stage Door," or the euphemisms in a Busby Berkeley movie like "Footlight Parade". A writer might tailor a part for someone, and after Marilyn had achieved a certain level of acclaim they would have tailored a part for her, but the credit generally goes to great writers like Mankiewicz and Wilder. Look at a great movie like "A Letter to Three Wives", "Midnight," "The Apartment" - movies which Marilyn was not involved with. The dialogue is sparkling. 67.10.133.121 22:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's usually the writers...but sometimes it's the actors who put their own touch on a movie with their own on-the-moment lines. Snowonster 02:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous links

Do the words "mental hospital", "modelling agency" and other generic nouns really need to be linked? This article is in need of more serious quality control than this, but taking out the links to non-encyclopedaic articles would at least be a start.

Please remember to sign your posts, please. Snowonster 02:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

DAUGHTER??

Did Mariyln Monroe have a daughter or not??? Can someone please add something here??

I dont think she had a daughter... they would've revealed themself by now if she did...

No, Marilyn never had a child. She had one ectopic pregnancy that had to be ended to save her life, and at least two other miscarriages. This is because she suffered the disease endometriosis, which greatly affected her life. This disease would explain her fatigue, the pain would explain her absences from work (as with any disease, endo often causes women to be unable to work), her addiction to painkillers, it could have added to her depression. It seems odd to me that it doesn't get commented on much by biographers when it clearly caused great devastation to her life. I believe she tried all the medical treatments at the time, including surgery, but none were successful. They barely understand the disease today so it must have been much worse in the 50s. LouiseCooke

• It's much easier to dismiss it as her being unreliable etc. Although with the number of pro-MM documentaries produced ,you'd think they would mention this more? Dollvalley 15:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

LouiseCooke is right, I have a book on Marilyn and it said her endometriosis caused her to have long and painful periods and eventually she had to be put on a strong birth control. Youch. --24.160.222.253 21:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning

I thoroughly edited the article. Hopefully it's a little less POV now. Let me know how I did and please don't hesitate working on it as well. --Downtownstar 22:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish Marilyn would have had a daughter because I'm sure she would have been GORGEOUS---Emily Ann---Wisconsin.

Possible vandalism?

From the article: Talked a club owner into booking Ella Fitzgerald [19];

the url for [19] is "http://www.findadeath.com/" which I'm guessing is vandalism. But I don't know the original url....

How is that vandalism? It's a legitimate URL.

P.S. Please sign your comments, thank you.--Downtownstar 20:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I just happened to add the Ella reference (under Stardom), which cites Wikiquote. This is a well-known citation and should be non-controversial. If it's removed, I think we should call it vandalism. J M Rice 03:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation Tag Removed

I removed the citation tag because I don't see the article to be in dire need of citations. Wikipedia policy is that citations are needed for controversial assertions. I didn't notice anything egregious in that respect. I suggest that, if others think citations are needed, it would be better, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, to use specific {{Fact}} tags inside the article. Frankly, I think this article is ready for at least GA status. — J M Rice 03:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Last Will and Testament of Marilyn Monroe

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of Marilyn Monroe's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of Marilyn Monroe. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to Marilyn Monroe's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of Marilyn Monroe. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the link, because it was added by an anonymous IP adding multiple links to your site. You need to have a consensus here instead. Wmahan. 05:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION: Why didn't she use her real name, Norma Jeane Baker? I doubt the legitimacy of this document. Are you positive that it is genuine?

First nude scene by a major actress?

I'm sure that can't be true. What about Hedy Lamarr in Ecstasy? This seems doubtful even if it is restricted to American films and actresses, though I don't have an example. Clarityfiend 21:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarity, you're correct. Hedy Lamarr appeared nude in that film a few decades before Marilyn appeared in the buff. 67.10.133.121 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You are both ignoring the fact that Hedy Lamarr was not a major star at the time she appeared nude. Her appearance only came to light after she made it big - much as Monroe's nude calendar would be revived in 1953. The statement is correct - Monroe would have been the first major American star with a nude scene.

I find this bit of trivia a bit odd. She would have never been seen nude in the movie, especially since it was a family comedy. She swam in the pool nude, and the surface of the water was very wavy so you can hardly see anything, at least in the surviving shots. Also, since you mention Hedy Lamarr, what about Maureen O'Sullavan (another non-major actress, ok)in the Tarzan movie? She swan underwater, the shot was underwater, and her breasts are VERY visible...Dollvalley 15:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I love how she pretty much set the trend for the first nude scence. Nobody could have done it as well as she did. She's a total inspiration---EA--WI

Marilyn Monroe's dress size

Sigh, again, this article is perpetuating an inaccuracy. Why do people go back and forth on this issue? Today, a size 5 dress is not the same as it was in Marilyn's time. A five would be considered a medium, then, but would be considered a small size today: the actual measurements went up. According to Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/mmdress.htm), which tracked down her measurements, Marilyn might have been a size 12, perhaps a size 10 by today's markers. They also point out, as this article does not, that Marilyn's weight cycled due to factors such as pregnancy, weight gain and loss. Leaving the "5" in without noting that sizes have gotten larger while the numbers have stayed the same is inaccurate. 67.10.133.121 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"prior-made teeth cosmetic surgery"

There may be some unnecessary obfuscation in the sentence that reads "Hyde also arranged for her to have plastic surgery on her nose and chin, adding that to prior-made teeth cosmetic surgery." Would it be better to revise the latter bit to something like, "...her nose and chin. (Monroe had undergone cosmetic dentistry at a prior time.)"? Robert K S 19:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

New Info on Monroe's Death?

I came across this story quite accidentally. I've heard of this outlet but I can't judge it's credibility because I don't know much about it.

Obviously, one story from an unproven (at least to me) outlet wouldn't seem to merit an edit of the article. However, the information shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, esp since it quotes the man who was LA's DA at the time of her death as calling for a re-opening of the investigation.

URL: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52493

I believe the following excerpt can be used under the Fair Use doctrine of US law...

WND Exclusive BLONDE BOMBSHELL Stunning new revelations: Marilyn Monroe murdered June DiMaggio breaks long silence on details surrounding mysterious death of her friend Posted: October 18, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Marilyn Monroe was talking on the telephone to Louise DiMaggio when she was murdered and was able to utter the name of her attacker before her death, according to a new book by DiMaggio's niece and Monroe confidante June DiMaggio.

In "Marilyn, Joe & Me," 44 years after the Hollywood superstar's mysterious death, which was ruled a suicide, June DiMaggio, friend of Marilyn and niece of New York Yankee Hall of Famer Joe DiMaggio, she discloses that her mother was speaking long distance with Marilyn Monroe when the actress was killed. DiMaggio says her mother overheard Monroe blurt out the name or names of her killer [sic] as they stormed into her bedroom.

_______________________________________

June DiMaggio is not who she claims she is!

June "DiMaggio" never existed--her real name is June E. Elpine ... PR Inside (Pressemitteilung) - Wien,Austria Last year this woman came out of nowhere and claimed to have been Marilyn Monroe's friend for eleven years. Nobody had ever heard ...

http://www.pr-inside.com/june-dimaggio-never-existed-her-real-name-is-june-e-elpine-she-never-met-marilyn-monroe-claims-r25776.htm

Should more evidence come forth, especially from more generally accepted sources (e.g. the AP or a reputable historian), then a re-write would have to be considered.

Until then I leave this for the perusal of the interested.

PainMan 14:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening Picture

Come on you can do better. A picture of a bug-eyed Marilyn on the phone is not the right picture to start off the Wiki article on this cultural icon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lester113 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, it has to be a public domain image, so that immediately limits the candidates. Have a look at Wikipedia's collection of Marilyn Monroe public domain images and see what we currently have to work with. If you see anything you like then go ahead and change it, but it's a pretty sorry collection. Don't forget that you are a Wikipedia editor yourself, so you are a part of the "you" who "can do better". If you can find a really good public domain image to use, it would be welcome. Rossrs 10:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this. I have the power to...."edit"... Wikipedia articles???? Well gosh darn I feel like like Newton under the apple tree!!

Call me crazy but I just thought it might be some what presumptuous of me to start editing an article that has had some dedicated editors that have devoted some real time to this article. I just want to make this article better. But thank you for telling me I am a Wikipedia editor & I have the power to, "do better" all by my self.

The black and white opening pic. the other day was one of the best on here. Whoever keeps changing it...can you please stop. Like the perons above said it is not the right picture to start her pge with.

I posted a new photo. It meets the guidelines. NYKenny 15:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Message for PainMan / for your consideration:

Scott, I tried to email you many times, but the emails are bouncing back. Are you okay?! I am posting some very important information that hopefully will be added in the appropriate way by some caring Marilyn Monroe fan into the main page. I tried to add this before to the main page about Marilyn Monroe--but some vicious individual just erased it without a comment. The Monroe history has moved way beyond the photographers lawsuit. Please edit and take whatever is appropriate for this forum and site. The biggest deal in Marilyn Monroe history right now is the fraud that is happening. If on eBay or live auctions; or through a fraudulent exhibit that almost took off to tour the world fro twelve years. Please work this piece of information into the main page. People need to be warned as well as informed and updated. I understand that this is a discussion board, so please, would anybody spend a moment to add this officially to the Aftermath section. Cause that is where it belongs. Happy Holidays and thank you.

Mark Roesler named as one of the defendants in the Queen Mary exhibit class action lawsuit

Mark Roesler is one of the three defendants that have been named in the class action lawsuit, which was filed on May 26, 2006, by plaintiffs Ernest W. Cunningham and Emily Sadjady, both Los Angeles, CA residents.[3]

The lawsuit was also filed against Robert W. Otto from Chicago, IL, and the Queen Mary corporation, which presented the now stopped 'Marilyn Monroe--the exhibit,' which opened its doors to the public at Mark Roesler's own office building in Indianapolis in December of 2004. The admission fee was $25.[4]

The lawsuit was filed in order to get the paying visitors their money back. The admission fee in Long Beach, CA was $22.95. The exhibit stayed for seven months and made an estimated $1.5 million in admission fees alone.

While trying to be reached for several interviews in February, 2006; after the release of actor and Marilyn Monroe memorabilia collector Mark Bellinghaus' blog article[5], which also named Mark Roesler, the lawyer did never state anything in public about his involvement into the exhibition frauds in two different American cities and states.[6]

The majority of the Marilyn Monroe memorabilia on display, the items that were claimed to originate from the legend herself, were found to be fraudulent by Mark Bellinghaus, the world's leading Marilyn Monroe expert.[7]

The first item named in the lawsuit describes a plastic set of hair curlers made by Clairol. This item was produced in 1974. Marilyn Monroe died in 1962. [8]

The opening of 'Marilyn Monroe--the exhibit' was the media spectacle of the year. Every Los Angeles news station was present, everyone wanted to interview the leading people involved in this spectacle. To see and hear Robert Otto, Mark Roesler's partner in this exhibit, and June DiMaggio, who served as authenticity for over 90% of the fake items, watch the video option.[9]

The hair rollers originated, like most of the exhibtion fakes from a woman that appreared out of nowhere, as she never was mentioned in any literature about Marilyn Monroe, or Joe DiMaggio. June Alpino aka June 'DiMaggio' served as authenticity for the fake Otto collection. Due to her advanced age she was spared from being part of the lawsuit. She is 83 years of age, not 78, as she claims in her book. She was 19 years when her mother married Tom DiMaggio, not 14 as she wants the reader to believe. There is no indication or proof, that June Alpino was ever legally adopted. She named herself 'DiMaggio' in the mid 1950s.

Mark Roesler is still standing behind June Alpino aka June 'DiMaggio's' book. [10]

He still can be seen on his website, talking in an interview to all of the main characters involved. [11]The show is dated December 9, 2005. "Contest Rules" to win a free ticket for 'Marilyn Monroe--the exhibit'; Mark Roesler's owned CMG is also named in this listing. [12]

In an interview for the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Mark Roesler appraised the value of the now sued exhibition.

He also insulted fans and collectors from around the world. People who would buy Marilyn Monroe items, that have been licensed by his own company, CMG Worldwide.

The Washington Post portrayed former Marilyn Monroe estate lawyer Roger Richman and Mark Roesler in an interview from December 7, 2004.[13]

He insulted people who would buy Marilyn Monroe items, that have been licensed by his own company, CMG Worldwide.

Mark Roesler also acted as one of the major sponsors of 'Marilyn Monroe--the exhibit.'[14]

In this interview, conducted by staff writer Robert W. Welkos, there is also evidence, that the Hollywood Museum rejected the Otto / Roesler exhibit in early 2005. Mr. Roesler didn't give up, after learning how many fakes were in Mr. Otto's collection. There were several claimed pairs of shoes of Marilyn Monroe, all of them in different shoe sizes. A claimed original USO card from Marilyn Monroe turned out to be a cheap photo copy.

There were interviews shown on Mark Roesler's website which had Robert Otto showing parts of his collection and creating one story after the next, attached to each item. Mark Roesler would ask numerous times about the value of different items. Those interviews were pulled off www.markroesler.com, after Mark Bellinghaus published his first blog article on blogcritics.org. The Mark Roesler owned www.MarilynMonroe.com disconnected itself fast from ties to "Marilyn Monroe--the exhibit," as it was dedicating a large space on that website to the fraudulent exhibit. Marilyn authority Mark Bellinghaus exposed his findings in his second article which explained the ties between Mark Roesler and Robert Otto.[15]

For insurance purposes, the list of items was investigated right after the lawsuit was filed. The plastic hair curlers from 1974 were insured for $300,000.00. Collector Mark Bellinghaus bought the same model for $7.99 on eBay after the original was pulled from the running exhibit in March, 2006 and disappeared for good after being exposed in numerous Los Angeles publications.[16]

This item will be of high interest in the class action lawsuit which will take place on May 7, 2007 in Los Angeles, Ca.[17]

Anna Strasberg, the owner of the estate of Marilyn Monroe still has not stated anything in regards to the Marilyn Monroe exhibition fraud, but she most certainly received parts of the admission money.

On April 10, 2006, a Wall Street Journal article, by staff writer Nathan Koppel mentions her as taking full charge of the estate of Marilyn Monroe.

"Anna thinks about and handles" Ms. Monroe's image "from the moment she wakes up," says William Wegner, her attorney.[18]

In order to remove any doubts about the exhibit, The Los Angeles Times, unknowingly, delivered the strongest evidence against Mark Roesler. On March 23, 2006, Robert W. Welkos printed an appraisal statement of the lawyer, which is serving now as proof, that Mark Roesler lied in public and tried to bluff the fans and collectors:

Mark Roesler, chairman and chief executive of CMG Worldwide Inc., the Indianapolis-based company that licenses the names and likenesses of 250 celebrities, including Monroe, said he remains absolutely convinced that Otto's collection is authentic and has appraised it as being worth $8.75 million. He said he's not at all surprised by the allegations of fraud.

"You always have jealous fan club members and collectors who question such things," Roesler said. "It goes with the territory."[19]

The last try to get away with the fraudulent exhibit was a 'facelift' of the months old exhibition in Long Beach. Almost all of the exposed items were replaced with items that were not on display at exhibit opening. But it was too late and the extention of the exhibit was the 'last breath' of 'Marilyn Monroe--the exhibit.'[20]

On his Wikipedia page Mark Roesler is being portrayed as representing 400 personalities, but in The Los Angeles Times interview, which is still the most recent interview, he is stating 250 celebrities. A difference of 150 clients?[21]

Roesler is asking on his website for donations for his own Legends Museum, which is located in his office building in Indianapolis, IN, which hosted the opening for the fraudulent Marilyn Monroe exhibit.[22]

On his website www.MarkRoesler.com, the star lawyer is currently playing a video from a speech, that he has given on May 31, 2005,[23]five months after the opening of 'Marilyn Monroe--the exhibit,' at Mark Roesler's CMG building in Indianapolis, IN, and six month before the next and ultimately the final stop of the exhibit in Long Beach, CA.[24]

Mark Roesler has not come forward with any sort of statement or explanation in regards to the exhibition fraud which he fully supported with statements, interviews, personal appearances and even bringing in one of his famous clients. Legendary Playboy magazine publisher Hugh Hefner[25] appeared on November 10, 2005, at the press opening for the biggest scam in exhibition history.[26]

If Mark Roesler's 'Marilyn Monroe--the exhibit' would not have been stopped, and instead had toured for the next twelve years, to over 39 cities worldwide as announced at exhibit's opening, it could have easily created $100 million.[27]

But more important than money, it would have created shame for the United States of America and it would have turned Marilyn Monroe into something that she never was or wanted to be--a joke! [28]

Why on Earth does this ridiculously long, POV-plagued text keep appearing in the article? --Downtownstar 04:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be long, agree on that, but the links prove the importance. There are two lawsuits filed and in progress against the estate of Marilyn Monroe. But they are not mentioned at all on the main page. Why? Not important? Would you not agree that it might be important if Marilyn Monroe turns "public domain" in the near future, so anybody could use her image and print it on wherever, without being sued by lawyer Mark Roesler and state owner Anna Strasberg? To Downtownstar, I suggest that you take it on and post it in the most Wiki friendly and correct way. That would be wonderful for all the new fans who might find Marilyn Monroe, but have no clue what is really going on right now in regards of the estate and the people who profit from those fans, when they go and buy a tacky MM purse for example. Thanks for your help!

With all due respect, whoever you are (please sign your comments in the future), it is not appropriate to make such major additions on Wikipedia articles before reaching consensus among other editors. Furthermore, while I sympathize with your honest and endearing fondness to this particular subject, I'd like to politely remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum where you're allowed to state your opinion on this kind of subjects, no matter how right you may be. Please stop adding nonsense here, no-one here wants a war. Thanks and Happy Holidays!--Downtownstar 08:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I can show you many parts of the Marilyn Monroe page that just took information from my blogs. So that is fine and cool and not plagiarism at all, since it was just "borrowed" right? You do not want a war? This country is still in war, I was attacked during my 13 months investigation. If you do not want to inform readers of your site about the ongoings, what is it good for anyhow. This is not my "opinion" it is simply fact. What has been going on in the Marilyn Monroe history is shocking and it needs to be pointed out! People helped themself and posted my findings and did not post the source for those findings. The source was my investigation and then my blogs. This is a discussion forum, or is it not? We can post--anybody is allowed to post here. Correct or not? I like to politely remind you that information is as important as prevention. Thanks and Happy Holidays to you to, and I wish you were correct, but it is not just "nonsense" I wish it was. Mmmovie 03:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum, it is a page to discuss improvements to the Wikipedia article on Marilyn Monroe. Information you have gathered yourself is no use for the article, as it violates our rule against original research. I hope you will understand that repeatedly adding the info against consensus is likely to get you blocked. --Guinnog 06:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In the death and aftermath was a wrong number mentioned as the Christie's auction results. Instead of $12.3, They made $13.4 million. Please take a note of that.Mmmovie 02:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Her career began in small roles, she gradually became known for her comedic skills and screen presence, going on to become one of the most popular movie stars of the 1950s.

this sentence is grammatically incorrect with the first comma. it should either be a 'period' or replace with 'and.' the word 'As' could be used to begin the sentence, making it correct. thoughts? The undertow 09:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection's not working?

I logged off my account and tried to edit this article, and it let me! Isn't this article supposed to be protected by unregistered users? 68.121.145.107 21:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It was protected with an autoexpiration which has passed. I don't know if a non-admin can remove the tag. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Abortions

I had recently read in an online article that Marilyn Monroe has had several abortions including the child of President John F. Kennedy can anyone give more clarification on this subject and if it is true or not true?? 68.162.0.79 03:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ANSWER: It is correct that Marilyn did have several abortions, but I'm not sure if the part about President Kennedy is true. Marilyn wanted a family, but Fox's executives bullied her into having several crude abortions, eventually making it impossible for her to ever have children again. I think that she regretted this greatly.

Dress Size?

What was Marilyn Monroe's UK dress size? I've read in magazines that it was a UK 14-16. Is this true? 212.139.171.139 17:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See response to post further up, about the same issue, including a link to a Snopes entry. MM's figure fluctuated a lot but most of the time, her waist was about 22-23 inches, which makes her about a curvy UK size 8 - or as the original poster has it, a 10 or 12 going on her bust and hip size. Sizes have changed a lot in the last few decades. --Nicole A. Jenkins 10:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith...

Can somebody add to the article about how women like Madonna and Nicole Smith are/were inspired by her? I would do, but the page is semi-protected. I haven't read the whole thing, so maybe they're already there, but it's important. 212.139.171.139 17:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Very pink

An alleged Monroe short porn movie featuring a wall-socket powered dildo(!) has just been uploaded to the web from FBI archives. Some say it is a fake, i.e. the girl in it is actually "Airline Hunter", a Playboy centrefold and B-class movie actress from 1954, instead of MM. Not that it matters any, MM was a highly talented, lovable icon, way above the current crop of Paris and Britney junk.

Anyhow, here is the footage: http://index.hu/img/assets/video/playere.swf?file=/cinematrix/marilyn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

- It's a fake. There have been many rumoured skin flicks but I don't think any have been authenticated. --Nicole A. Jenkins 10:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

early years

is there a way to clean up the 2nd paragraph? it starts with 'Her Mexican-born mother, Gladys Pearl Monroe (born in Piedras Negras, Mexico), had returned from Kentucky.' then it goes off topic. what is this sentence in relation to? was she born, to have her mother leave, and then return? i don't know much about miss monroe, but the early life seems to be non-linear.
The undertow 07:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also her father didn't emigrate from Norway. He was born in Vallejo, California. Wjhonson 06:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

More details with documentation on her early life, parents, ancestors here. Wjhonson 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Any further images of "Airline Hunter"? Joe Geshka 22:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cursum Perficio

A google search on "latin Cursum Perficio" will get you past most of the Enya stuff and link to several pages offering up translations for various Latin phrases. The most common translations for "Cursum Perficio" are "My journey is over", "My journey ends here", "I make an end to my course", etc. I've only seen one translation for "Stay on course" (but others closer to "I have stayed the course" or "I have completed the course" which is nearer to the sense of the other translations) from a google search on "Cursum Perficio" (no "latin") that leads to someone's personal website and a claim to the family motto. So, not speaking Latin, I'd go with the preponderence of google evidence and I have cited the item as such. Ave atque vale! (Hail and farewell). Wiggy! 07:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

this really depends on the literal translation. the word 'course' derives from 'cursum,' so i am inclined to use it (course), rather than 'journey.' 'perficio' means to 'complete or finish.' i believe the most literal of translations would be 'i completed my course.' the_undertow ^talk 07:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fair and essentially has the same sense. There was some short back-and-forth over which of the translations was correct, and I couldn't see any evidence for "Stay on course" (which was being pushed by an overly agressive editor I've come across elsewhere). This was way more civilized. Thanks for your help! Wiggy! 08:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bridgette Bardot

I added this to the misc. facts section. SmokeyTheCat 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And I removed it, since you not only misspelled Brigitte Bardot's name but also failed to provide a convincing source.(And even if you had provided one, this gossip bit is far from encyclopedic info). --Downtownstar 10:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have have though Bardot's memoirs were a reliable enough source. And I think I adds to the overall picture of the subject. So I have put it back. Remove again if you feel that strongly about it.SmokeyTheCat 09:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The least you could have done was to spell her name correctly. In any case, some wise people removed your entry before I got to it again. It's good to know I'm not alone here.--Downtownstar 09:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Downtownstar, I will go with the majority and accept your judgement. Still the image of Monroe and Bardot in a clinch is one that will warm the hearts of most red-blooded males I would have thought. And a fair few followers of Sappho too. And I did get her name right the second time. Please don't quibble.SmokeyTheCat 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound judgmental. I'm sure you had the fairest of intentions. It's just that Wikipedia is not a porn magazine. It's an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't give a rat's arse for what turns on red-blooded males - or females.--Downtownstar 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson

can somebody talk about how he was inspired by her?70.126.190.77 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

seems like his inspirations would be a better fit on his page? the_undertow ^talk 23:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just put it on anyways, and its on the charles manson page, i think70.126.190.77 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Shouldn't this article be semi-protected for a while? It has been the target of extensive daily vandalism for quite a while. I already launched the semi-protection template once, but I accept the fact it was removed since I didn't discuss it. Opinions?--Downtownstar 13:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to vote for this? Some kind of a reply would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.--Downtownstar 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No reactions? Fine. I semi-protected this once again. There are more than a handful of daily attempts to vandalize the article. --Downtownstar 14:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Vandalism levels seem pretty high and, looking at the history, in some cases it has taken a while to revert vandal edits. Hopefully they'll lose interest if they can't edit the page for a while. WjBscribe 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Death

Sad case with Ana Nicole Smith, accidental suicide? Did Monrose died by accident, did she find her inner peace she never had? The lifestyle of rich and famous, especially marital problems, did that contribute to her suicide? Feel free to leave me a message. Rumors... is it true a sex maniac entered the morgue where she was at and violated her, is that true with James Dean? I am sure there was huge security? User_talk:Dale4sail

Daughter?

In the Marriages section, under James Dougherty, it says he fathered a child with her (which I'm really sure he did not), and that her name was Ana Nicole Dougherty. I know Anna Nicole Smith tried to be Marilyn Monroe, and that would be an interesting tie-in for her name change, but since the veracity of the claim is the most important, I think it should be removed, or at least a source cited. One thing it does say is that he was said to be the father of her child on To Tell the Truth, but there's no easy way to really check on that.

Hopefully we can do something to fix this, but to be honest, I didn't want to delete it without confirmation on the talk page. Thank you.

--JamisonK 23:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Jewish American Actor?

I don't know whether she was Jewish or not, but if the article is categorized under Jewish American Actors, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in the article (like every other article about Jewish people - "... was born into a Jewish family in ...")? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.68.70.25 (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Actually, she converted to Judaism, and this is mentioned in the article. (See the Arthur Miller section) Mad Jack 17:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

ERROR IN MAIN PAGE

Marilyn was NOT born under the name Norma Jeane Mortenson, she was actually born under the name Norma Jeane BAKER. This is a common misconception, because it is believed that Mr. Mortenson was her father, but she was BORN under the surname BAKER. Just wanted to point that out.

Mortenson was her legal and official birthname, whoever the father was. There is cold hard proof of this in the references of the article.--Downtownstar 23:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Norma Jean

Even though it really makes no difference to the article, I just wanted to say that under trivia or whatever the category is it could say the metal band Norma Jean was named after her. I just brought this up because i couldn't edit it myself and stuff.

Also, Elton John wrote a song about her titled "Candle in the Wind"

Blonde bombshell

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Blonde Bombshell was not her name at any point. Someone keeps editing the infobox and adding this as one of names. I have no choice but to keep reverting unless there is proof that it was indeed a name of hers.--Downtownstar 14:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Her name

Her original name, "Norma Jeane Mortensen" is incurrectly written "Norma Jeane MortenSON" in this article. Since her non-biological father was Norwegian her name would end with "Sen", witch in this case will mean "son" in Norwegian. Mortensen basicly means Morten's son in Norwegian. "Son" is only used in Swedish and Icelandic. --80.202.209.125 17:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that would be the logical conclusion, but her birth certificate says Mortenson, so we'll have to stick with that.--Downtownstar 17:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Lawford Quote

Regarding the Peter Lawford quote: Say goodbye to Pat, say goodbye to the president, and say goodbye to yourself, because you're a nice guy.[...]I'll see, I'll see.

Might I recommend caution? The above has been disputed by several reputable sources as it is only Lawford's word, and he has been implicated in her death, as having been involved on some level. We also know that it is likely that MM was already dead by the time he claimed that she phoned him. The quote seems to have been given with the intention of implying suicide.

It's a pity the phone records were "lost" or we might have some idea of who and when she called people that ill fated night.--Nicole A. Jenkins 11:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Father

Her real father was Charles Stanley Gifford. Look, her mother had a relationship with him, before she was born. "He's my father", she said. She's not a Norwegian-American. Mortensen was no the real father. And Della Mae Hogan (her maternal grandmother) was of Irish, French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese ancestry, while her maternal grandfather was of Greek, Macedonian, Bosnian and Scottish ancestry. Charles Stanley Gifford was of Croatian, English, Dutch and Albanian ancestry. So she's no a Norwegian-American.

Ultima Ratio Sexbomb

Is this she? If yes, it would be sinificant that Playboy considers here THE one woman above all, based on 45 years of experience. http://www.livresphotos.com/IMG/jpg/playboy_1.jpg

Marrage claims

Anyone know of the claims by Robert Slatzer that he was married briefly to MM in 1953 and should they be added.BigDunc 12:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In his book there is a copy of a marriage certificate. Who knows?--Julia0101 05:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WHEN

WHEN is Hollywood going to make a good Marilyn Monroe film. Monroe's story is one to be told. I have a feeling that not everyone takes her very seriously but all that will change when once a movie is made , and made right. I want to know who will portray her. I've been thinking really hard but had nothing. User: MovieGuru2006 5;20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussion pages are not forums or message boards. You may discuss issues here relating to the article but other issues extranaeous to the article you may discuss at any of the Marilyn Monroe fan sites. Tovojolo 00:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

height

Please provide her height in metric system too, in brackets. That'd be 166 cm. 83.9.70.228 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comma splice

"Her mother Gladys Pearl Monroe was born in Porfirio Diaz, Mexico..."

There needs to be a comma before and a comma after her name. I'd do it myself, but the article's locked. Polyhymnia 05:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Her Death

The following is incorrect on the main page, somebody should fix it, "Her death was ruled as an overdose of sleeping pills". This is not true, not sleeping pills. I have a copy of her "Office Of County Coroner" report, file 81128, Aug 5, 1962, which has been published many times. Her death was a result of "Acute Barbiturate Poisoning", "The stomach is almost completely empty... No residue of pills is noted. A smear made from the gastric contents and examined under the polarized microscope shows no refractile crystals." If there were no pills in her system, and they were digested, then there had to be refractile crystals. That is the reason her cause of death was declared a “Probable suicide and not “Suicide”.--Julia0101 06:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

PS-Someone should also wrtie about the May 16, 2007, New York Christie’s auction house sale of a painting of Marilyn Monroe titled “Lemon Marilyn” by Andy Warhol for a world record of $28,040,000.00 dollars ($28 million). Amazing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia0101 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What's amazing is that you hadn't noticed that the same auction house flogged another work by Warhol, "Green Car Crash", for over double what it got for the Monroe picture, and on the very same occasion (IHT article). Not that art pricing lunacy has anything to do with this article. -- Hoary 15:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Death of Clark Gable

I read some years ago that Gable's heart attack was caused by director John Huston, not Monroe. But I think it's pure speculation either way. Eye.earth 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Monroe family

Was Marilyn Monroe related to former U.S. president James Monroe? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Her fame

Someone keeps adding the sentence "she surpassed the fame of any of her peers" in the opening of the article. Despite the fact Britannia Encyclpoedica says so on their web page, this is clearly a point of view. There is no cold-hard evidence to back up such claims. I won't revert anymore, because that would lead to a war, but can someone give me a thorough explanation on why this is neutral common knowledge and not under dispute? -- Downtownstar 12:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Downtownstar, there is a citation (Encyclpoedica Britannia) and I think most people in the world would agree that she was the most famous female movie star of the 20th century. I think the sentence that you took out and I added back in explains her fame a lot more than just "a measure of success". Just "a measure of success" in not accurate in my opinion and has no wiki citation.--Octavian history (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear you, by all means, have it your way until someone else comes and corrects you. You've got nothing to back up your claim; the website you're providing as a source is not trustworthy or factual - rather, it consists of a biased article written from a perspective of an opinionated person. "I think most people would agree" is absolutely not a credible argument. Have a good one. Downtownstar 16:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Encyclpoedica Britannia absolutely is a reliable source. They use Britannia in almost every school in the US. It is not the word of God, but it is reliable.--Octavian history (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

quote??

so i found this marilyn quote and was wondering if i should add it to the article. it sounds pretty relevant to me since so many people think she committed suicide... "A wise girl kisses but doesn't love, listens but doesn't believe, and leaves before she is left" who else thinks it should be in the quotes section????? --Plavalagunanbanshee (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

cleaned up and archived

many of the comments here dated back to 2005. more than old enough to archive. cleaned out assorted WP:FORUM violations, and moved to the archive link, just above. Anastrophe (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

relationship with the kennedys

someone needs to go and expand the section that talks about the affairs she had with John and Robert Kenndey. This was a big part of her life and it deserves to be talked about more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.101.77 (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain the issue even deserves a section of its own.--Downtownstar (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To user 70.189.101.77, if you have factual information and citations, please help expand the section, or write it here (in the talk page) and we can add it for you. I agree that it is an important part of her life, but it's very important to separate the facts from the fiction. Joe DiMaggio told both his son and attorney that "the Kennedys killed her". Many others have also made such claims. I have a lot of respect for Joe DiMaggio and don't believe he would ever make such claims if he did not have a good reason for it.--Octavian history (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Shouldn't specific information about who believes what about the way she died be in the Death article rather than the introduction? Also, as of now, there are only two theories - murder ... suicide - mentioned, when in reality there has been much speculation about an accident as well.

The intro also suffers from pompose expressions such as "many individuals believe", which could easily be edited if only they weren't reverted time and again by Octavian history, who doesn't seem to be open to anyone but their ideas - not a very productive way of improving the article.--Downtownstar (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Downtownstar, sorry if you don't like Encyclopedia Britannica and all the other reliable sources I used with citations. You already expressed yourself (in archive now) that you do not believe Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources I used are reliable, but most people and university's would disagree with you about Encyclopedia Britannica. The death section explains the details, the opening of the article mentions her untimely death because that is what has immortalized her just like Diana. There are so many books and documentaries about her suspicious death.--Octavian history (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about Encyclopedia Britannica, in fact I haven't touched that part of your text anymore because I can live with the source.

Your other sources are good as well, it's not about that. It's about the fact that the introduction should be more to the point, with details removed where they belong.

The fact is that the article will never go anywhere if you're not willing to have anything any other way than yours. You're doing a good job, just please let others try to improve the article as well. --Downtownstar (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nearly the last words of Marilyn to President John F. Kennedy were, "Whoops, I think I'm pregnant." JFK may have sent his K-Men to do her in.? Ronald Reagan, once the President of the Actor's Guild, did an investigation into her death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnostics (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Childhood

I went back into history and restored all the original detail this article once had, into a new article space. I don't want to review all that transpired to see *why* it was deleted, but I find all that information very interesting and don't wish to see it vanish into limbo. If anyone wants to trim *this* Childhood on-article here, I've added the main-article-link to the header to allow for easy movement back and forth. Wjhonson (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC) =Spanish Californio ancestry= I once read in a bio that her mother was descended from an Anglo-Spanish family and the Sepulveda family in particular.anyone have more info on this fascinating bit of news?I used to live close to Sepulveda Blvd. in LA.jeanne (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"vital statistics"

In this unbroken series of edits, spanning fifteen minutes, an IP (i) added adulatory material (or at least an adulatory tone) to the prose, and (ii) made flattering changes to statistics. The flattering changes may for all I know be entirely correct, but their context suggests to me that they may well not be. Somebody more knowledgable about Monroe than I am may wish to check. -- Hoary (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

article lead

Do there really need to be 13 citations in just the lead of the article? It makes for very poor readability, especially because most of those things are explored in the article and could very well be cited there instead of junking up the intro. Icarus of old (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Measurements

Please explain why a source other than playboy.com should be used. There are only 2 editors, an IP address and Roctavia (assuming in good faith that they are seperate), want to use a source other than playboy.com in her playboy infobox. The edits even include adding ranges to her measurements. I am positive that is not what the playmate info said in her layout. If you could explain why you want to do this that would help and maybe you won't get reverted. Jons63 (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

i think the editor is simply confused, and believes the infobox refers to her measurements in general, rather than as specific to the playboy article. hopefully i made the issue clear in my last reversion edit summary and this silly back and forth will end. Anastrophe (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope so, but I did the same thing earlier and yesterday with the IP. We will see. Jons63 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Roctavia please discuss here why you want to use a source other than playboy.com for her measurements on her playboy layout and why she would have a range of measurements on her layout. Jons63 (talk) 02:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

i think at this point, with the clear disinterest in discussing the matter, any future edits need to be marked as vandalism, and escalate until blocked. they seem unmoved by anything less. Anastrophe (talk) 07:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That was my plan, but I was willing to give it one final chance, probably won't work, but the editor can't complain we didn't try. Jons63 (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Roctavia please discuss here why you want to use a source other than playboy.com for her measurements on her playboy layout. If you change these again without discussing the changes here they will be reverted as vandalism and you will be warned on your talk page. Please don't push it that far. Jons63 (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Father

I cleaned up a bit the section reporting other assertions about her father. The newspaper article does not mention it, the fan site is not a very useful source and it's own claim is uncited. And I removed an extraneous line claiming that Monroe believed Gifford was her father. The birth certificate evidence, the late divorce and the death report of Mortensen all point to him being her father. Extraordinary claims require greater proof.Wjhonson (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Filmography

Where is the section on filmography?Anwar (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It was in the section entitled "Movies". I've gone ahead and renamed it to "Filmography" per most other actor/director articles. Graham87 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sex tape section

I deleted the sex tape section since, contrary to what was written, the existence of this sex tape has not been "confirmed." A gossip story in the New York Post is not confirmation of anything. All that’s known is someone sold some film which they claim is of Marilyn Monroe and supposedly someone bought it. There's no proof it features Monroe or what is actually on the film. Unless the existence of this film is verified by some credible source and it can be proven that it is Monroe and it can be proven it is in reality a sex tape, this information does not belong in Monroe’s wikipedia entry. April 14, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If an article in a major U.S. daily isn't enough confirmation, I'm not sure what would be. Your removal has now been reverted twice by two separate editors. Ford MF (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Did any reporters from the New York Post actually view the film and confirm that it is indeed Monroe? Did the individual who purchased the tape come forward and say he/she watched the film and "believes" it to be Monroe? The reality is, the New York Post is taking the seller of the film's word for it, that this is indeed Monroe in the film. A film no one has actually seen other than the seller and the anonymous purchaser. The only so called “confirmation” is a gossip story in ONE newspaper. I’m not trying to stir up trouble or pick a fight, but seriously NOTHING has been confirmed. Isn’t it interesting how the seller said that the purchaser will not release the tape or allow it to be seen by others, essentially making actual confirmation IMPOSSIBLE. If I'm breaking and rules here or acting in bad faith, send this issue up the chain and let the Wikipedia Gods settle the issue. April 14, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sad commentary on Wikipedia that a baseless piece of gossip form a source like the New York Post can be treated as legit. Hopefully someone with a better understanding of the workings of Wikipedia, will come along and have this section removed for good. Interesting, (not a surprise though), how the section in question has become increasingly sexually graphic. Bit of one handed typing going on I suspect…sad…very sad. April 14, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity the guy who bought it vowed to never release it to the public.… Jackass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.135.84 (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it unconfirmed, it's starting to look totally bogus. The guy who "came forward" and "confirmed" it has been on talk shows trying to hype his soon to be released Monroe documentary which just happens to coincide with the sex tape which we will conveniently never see. I'm deleting the section and I suggest you let it lie for a week or so until things become more clear. If nothing new occurs, you still can't say it was "confirmed" just because a newspaper took this guys word for it with no evidence to back it up. 68.166.65.62 (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that the passage cited (postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212141962.shtml) this, from the section Tittle Tattle Too: You do it, we tell, too bad within something called The Post Chronicle. The content is all on the say-so of A man by the name of Keya Morgan, a collector who came into possession of Marilyn's sex tape. This is fascinating, fascinating stuff! Could this be the same Keya Morgan as is splattered all over Talk:Death of Marilyn Monroe in connection with some other alleged Kennedy angle to Monroe sleaze? That was being pushed (most tiresomely) by a number of users with curiously similar interests (often Persian) and idiolects, most conspicuously User:Bobtoo, whose earlier exploits had included deriving a Japanese photographer of Monroe -- one "Takashi Oyama", unknown to any Japanese encyclopedia of Japanese photographers -- from (and I here reproduce his list of sources) 1. The Nakayama fashion guide of 1969." [Huh?] / 2. "Marilyn Monroe", by Janet Jackson, 1972, Cornerstone Press. [No, Google hasn't heard of that book either] / 3. The estate of Joe DiMaggio. [Where within it?] But perhaps photos of Monroe are unrelated to a snippet of film of her. Anyway, my congratulations to Mr Morgan on his recent achievement. -- Hoary 10:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well well, a Guardian reproduction of a Reuter's story of the same. It's all on the say-so of Memorabilia collector Keya Morgan, later amplified to a well-known collector who owns memorabilia from the estates of Monroe and DiMaggio and said he was friends with Monroe's other two husbands, Jim Dougherty and Arthur Miller. (I wonder how Miller's autobiography presents the last part.) ¶ War brewing between Sudan and Chad, US economy going down the tubes, Clinton and Obama still slugging it out, China still upset by the Dalai Lama, Olympic torch farce continuing -- but yet Reuters and the Grauniad have space for this. Heartwarming! -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The New York Post running a trashy gossip story and not subjecting it to even the mildest of journalistic review doesn't surprise me, that Reuters would do the same, is tragic. There are high school newspapers with a greater commitment to journalistic integrity. April 15, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is enough room for doubt, sure, but the story is being printed as fact by not only the Post, but Fox, MSNBC, The Huffington Post, Reuters, Yahoo, ABC, The Telegraph UK, The Guardian UK (which, admittedly, in a separate article, does devote a sentence to raise questions about the film's authenticity). Until the media starts treating this guy like it doubts his story, there's not really any justification for us to do so either. If news sources--multiple major news sources--print something, it's not really within Wiki editors' rights to say "I don't believe that", as our articles are written on the principle X says Y. The article should probably be amended to show that at least one source has pointed out the lack of independent verification. Ford MF (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted a reintroduction of this crapola, which claimed that it was confirmed that Monroe once appeared in a 15-minute long, silent, black and white, 16 mm film performing oral sex on an unknown man sometime in the 1950s, citing (postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212141962.shtml) this as the source.

"Confirmed" my ass. This instalment of "Tittle Tattle Too: You Do It, We Tell, Too Bad" credulously reports that this is what the seller claims. That's all. (And we know that the seller has been trying desperately to whip up interest in some "documentary" of his about Monroe.)

Reminder: this is Wikipedia, not Hollywoodbabylonopedia. And even if Monroe were verifiably filmed sucking dick, what would this tell us about her?

Not that I'm too enthusiastic about the article as it stands, with the blather at the start about "icon". She was an actress and a pinup; if some people fetishized her there's no need for something purporting to be an encyclopedia to do so as well. -- Hoary (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you mean there's no need to write her up in a way that reflects majority opinion about her? Again, it's fine for the section to be rewritten in a more skeptical tone (it should be), but when something gets major coverage across the media like this (the story is sourced to numerous news networks that are hardly tabloids, incl. ABC, the Guardian and Reuters), you can't really say "the media is wrong". The media is reporting--credulously, it's true--and Wikipedia reflects what is reported in reliable sources. Ford MF (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, F M Fraud has now reintroduced this, in slightly watered down form. We now read: In 2008, multiple news sources reported the existence of a 15-minute long, silent, black and white, 16 mm film of Marilyn Monroe performing oral sex on an unknown man sometime in the 1950s, mostly on the word Marilyn [sic] memorabilia collector Keya Morgan. "Marilyn memoribilia collector"? He's the seller. Or anyway he claims to have sold it. And he has a great motive for saying so: no doubt this will be one of the sales points of the dreck-to-video shockumentary. And who says this is true other than the seller?

And F M Fraud, even if this did verifiably show MM sucking Presidential Dick [surely we should capitalize for the leader of the free world], how would its inclusion be encyclopedic? -- Hoary (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You could also ask the question "how is this newsworthy"? And yet, huh, there it is, being printed by dozens of news organs. Ford MF (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's feebly newsworthy because it combines two half-century-old slebs and does so via extramarital cocksucking, which is always ripe for a giggle. The Guardian gets most of its revenue from advertising, I believe; but it also feels the need to titillate its readers. This story may titillate the dumber ones.

I'm not helping to create a newspaper. I'm helping to create an encyclopedia. How is some dealer's claim that he flogged some film encyclopedic? -- Hoary (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't and this "news" story is getting more and more dubious with each passing day. FM Fraud's continued insistence that this grossly unsubstantiated information be included is flirting with vandalism. April 15, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sez the IP with numerous vandalism warnings on his talk page. Ford MF (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm no Wikipedia expert FM Fraud, I stopped editing when I was informed of my error (last edit April 14, 2008), you on the other hand, have (up until recently) not let up. For the record I have no idea were the bowling notation on my talk page came from, I've never gone anywhere near a Wikipedia bowling article. April 16, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm neither a fan or foe of MM, but there seems to be quite a bit of hard core (no pun intended) evidence that this tape exists. Can anyone dispute the existence of the declassified FBI documentation of the "French type" movie? In addition," According to the documents, "Former baseball star Joseph DiMaggio in the past had offered [the informant] $25,000 for this film, it being the only one in existence, but he refused the offer." As to WHO the man in the film is, we will never know for sure. To maintain a NPOV, this article needs to state facts about Miss Monroe. There are plenty of places to worship her iconic status--this is not one of them.--TravelinSista (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Can anyone dispute the existence of the declassified FBI documentation of the "French type" movie?" - Nope can't dispute the existence of her FBI file, but I'd be more than happy to dispute the accuracy of what was in that file. How many "blacklisted" actors, writers and directors were labelled as communists in there FBI files, when in reality they were just union activists or pacifists? Please keep in mind this was J. Edgar Hoovers FBI, I think any sensible person would and should take what appears in the FBI files from that era with several grains of salt. For the record a concern for truth and accuracy can't really be dismissed as worshipping her iconic status. "To maintain a NPOV, this article needs to state facts about Miss Monroe" - couldn't agree more, the problem is the sex film accusation is about as far from fact as anything I have ever seen on Wikipedia. April 15, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Marylin Monroe sex film passes Wikipedias standards for inclusion. It is properly sourced and definitely significant.Pisomojado (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but it looks as though people are still reverting the article--TravelinSista (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the only evidence available for this is the word of one man with an apparent conflict of interest. The movie the FBI referred to was probably the Arline Hunter video. If this currently flimsy story is to be included then at the least you need to include the context of the various other Marilyn Monroe pornographic claims that were proven to be hoaxed/false. Such as http://defamer.com/380219/exclusive-debunking-the-marilyn-monroe-sex-tape-hoax24.144.27.89 (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Having read that Defamer piece I'll now withdraw my support for the material, though I admit I'm a little uneasy with its total noninclusion, seeing as how, for whatever reason, the story's really had some legs this news cycle. Another spate of articles on the subject popped up on CBS, in the LA Times, the Herald, &c, and the dude was on The Early Show. I still do kinda think we should report on the claims being made by both sides, if only for the article to serve as a source of encyclopedic debunking itself. I seriously doubt even half these articles would have gone to press, if there was a small section in this article elaborating the claims, their unlikelihood, and a reflink to the Defamer piece. Ford MF (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Both sides" -- but one "side" is merely parroting what Morgan has told them. Yes, it's a minor jamboree for the tabloids and for tabloid wannabees such as The Guardian, but predictably so: people (especially the Brits) are obsessed with slebs, and the notion that one sleb fellated another is irresistible (if insignificant). This will blow [pardon me] over quickly unless actual evidence and significance are revealed. If they are revealed, then stick it in. (And if that happens, let's not mince words; I recommend the section title "Presidential blowjob".) I still think that people will stay away in droves from Morgan's shockumentary, which I predict will be hugely less interesting than a doc such as Air Guitar Nation. But then, millions of people went to see (for example) Forrest Gump and actually claim to have enjoyed it, so who knows. -- Hoary (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I recommend the section title "Presidential blowjob" Something tells me you're not taking this entirely seriously, and I can't tell if you're taking the piss or generally disposed to raving. Ford MF (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're half right: I'm unable to take this seriously. Morgan gravely reassures any hack who'll listen and write him up that the mini skinflick (in which the "head" role is played by some woman who's fully clothed) is in the hands of somebody with the greatest respect for blah blah blah, yet he simultaneously brags of having pulled over a million bucks for it. ¶ The model for coverage of any verified Monroe/Kennedy blowjob film must surely be the article 1 Night in Paris, with such edifying content as Hilton then goes to the hotel's bedroom and sits on chair where Salomon removes her panties. She takes a sip of champagne -- which commendably helps those of Wikipedia's readers who are unsure what "panties" and "champagne" might mean. (Varieties of cheese?) ¶ Can you take it seriously? What drug might enable me to take this kind of stuff seriously? (Prolonged television viewing, perhaps?) -- Hoary (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to me that the Defamer article has gotten such traction in this debate. If respected media outlets reporting on the film are not valid, how then can we use a celebrity BLOG that calls itself "The L.A. Gossip Rag" a credible source? I agree that the title "Presidential blowjob" is completely out of line, but using "hoax" in the subject title is also misleading. --TravelinSista (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

True, the Defamer is a mere gossip site, and (for example) the Guardian is a real newspaper. True, an article in the Guardian is normally worth a thousand in a gossip site. However, the Reuters and other material does little more than regurgitate the line pushed by somebody who's hawking his upcoming movie and thus has a commercial interest in whipping up interest in this stuff. They present no evidence for these salacious claims. The Defamer piece cites (or claims to cite) people who seem disinterested, and moreover presents what at least appear to be arguments worth reading. I think you're using "blog" very freely: Certainly this site is a gossip site and allows people to add bloglike (and mostly inane) comments to the article; but the article itself is unbloglike. -- Hoary (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I am not completely happy, I think the current statement regarding the film portrays both sides of the argument--can we agree that it states the closest we can get to a NPOV?--TravelinSista (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The section's much more reasonable now than the crappy version I was pushing two days ago before I'd done due diligence. I do think it important to include the Defamer ref, however, because it's practically the only voice of informed dissent on the subject when virtually all the mainstream media sources are stupidly, uncritically relaying Morgan's claims. Ford MF (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Along with the Defamer article there's another, more thorough article that was posted on The Smoking Gun website which I added into the section.Teleomatic (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Ford MF (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It has become obvious to me that there are editors who want to ignore credible sources. To downplay CNN and MSNBC, but praise the "truth telling" of The Defamer (!) and The Smoking Gun is ridiculous! There has been NOTHING on mainstream news that would suggest that this film is a hoax. There are many of you who are attacking the seller of the film for his ulterior motives, but has anyone looked at it from a different perspective? If he had marketed the film himself and sold it to the masses, he could have made ALOT more money than $1.5!! He is a SERIOUS collector of MM memorabilia. Yes, he may profit from this, but his profits could have been far greater had he revealed her activities to the world. The film is NOT a hoax. This entry is slanted to keep an idealistic image of an iconic woman.--TravelinSista (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's capitalize less and think more. Yes, by the feeble US standards of today, CNN and MSNBC are respectable (or anyway mainstream) infotainment sources. No, the Defamer and the Smoking Gun are not. Now, I'll admit that I haven't looked far (as I'm uninterested in sleb sleaze, Monroe, Kennedy, etc.), but I haven't seen anything in mainstream (or other) infotainment to suggest any credibility other than that provided by Morgan's say-so. The last time I looked, nobody else was claiming to have seen this strip of film, and Morgan had neither said who'd sold it or bought it nor presented any evidence for the sale. Meanwhile, the Defamer article is written by three people, of whom one is the author of what appears to be a respected book on the subject, and it is argued. The Smoking Gun article too presents evidence.

All right, I'll look at this non-event from the different perspective that you suggest. If the film existed as described and Morgan had sold it to the salivating masses, it's imaginable that he could have made a lot more than $1.5M (I really don't know, as I am not up to speed on porn marketing); on the other hand, if it didn't exist or if its cast were "headed" by some other female (with painted mole), it would get very little.

You say [Morgan] is a SERIOUS collector of MM memorabilia. I rather got the impression that he was a serious reseller of the stuff, but the web page he devotes to this is so confused that it's unclear what's for sale, what's already been sold, whether what's been sold was sold by him or somebody else, etc. (I'd have guessed that seriousness would require copyediting, but perhaps this guess merely reveals my ignorance of the memorabilia industry: Bellinghaus seems hardly any more coherent than Morgan, more verbose, and just as fond of exclamation points.)

You say The film is NOT a hoax. You don't give reasons. And there's asymmetry here: I don't say it is a hoax; I merely say that nothing calling itself an encyclopedia should believe a single source who presents no convincing evidence and who is clearly not disinterested. (True, I supplement this with the comment that even if an authentic Monroe blowjob film were proven to exist, this would be mere trivia unless/until proven otherwise. Keep reading.)

You say This entry is slanted to keep an idealistic image of an iconic woman. First, you appear to be assuming that she is or was "iconic". This journalistic buzzword is symptomatic of the lint I'd like vacuum-cleaned out of this article. Indeed, I've already started, deleting the claim that she is/was a [linked!] "cultural icon" but immediately got into trouble (see the section below), despite the fact that the cultural icon article is a load of cobblers. Secondly, you seem to be rushing to infer the motives of your fellow editors. My own motives are to keep an encyclopedia article encyclopedic, which requires the deletion mere tittle-tattle and/or trivia (as WikiPedia is not toilet paper). Now, if it were later shown that Monroe did indeed give one or more blowjobs to the Prez and that this paid dividends, e.g. by getting her an introduction to somebody important in her career, I'd be in favor of adding this nugget to the article, "ideal" (let alone "icon") be damned.

Well, sort it out yourselves: I'm busy, and am taking this page off my watchlist for at least a couple of weeks. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should take the whole section out, but I agree that "The Defamer" and The Smoking Gun reference is ridiculous. All of the mainstream news such as Fox News and CNN, Today show ran the story and never said it was not authentic. Plus if we can't see the tape, why have a section about it? Should it not be in the porn section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samcontacto (talk • contribs) 08:42, 21 April 2008

Seeing or not seeing the tape makes no difference. If you want to go THERE, I WOULD say I never saw her naked to confirm that she was, in fact, a woman, BUT I remember that she posed nude at one point. Let's look at the evidence for both sides: Tapes exists, Reuters, CNN, MCNBC; Tape is a hoax, The Smoking Gun, The Defamer. When I look at it that way, there just doesn't seem to be a way to disregard it. In regards to the comment about putting it in the "porn" section, doesn't that statement lend itself to proving the tape's existence?--TravelinSista (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) For what it's worth, the an IP address that added added to, and cited references for, the content in question also removed similar content (e.g. "Joe DiMaggio is reported to have offered twenty-five thousand dollars...") from celebrity sex tape a couple of months ago. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Although the dealer did not report the identity of the seller or the buyer, or present any evidence of the film or the sale..." - this sentence alone is why this entire section should be deleted, but since consensus (at this point anyways) seems impossible on deletion, I won't attempt to edit or delete this section as it now stands. But I don't understand how after reading that sentence, anyone could seriously defend leaving this information in. Wishing something was true, doesn't make it true. April 17, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn and User talk:Johnyajohn#June 2007. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just as much of a hot topic here on the talk page as it is in the media right now. I agree with one of the other editors who reverted this back, stating its heavily referenced so I am reinserting this section back. --Monnai (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, though User:Hoary's convinced me, and I've come around to thinking the announcement is 100% bullshit, it is something heavily reported on, and so it's the duty of Wikipedia to include it to the best of our ability. At the very least, I think Wikipedia's primary purpose must be that it is useful to its readers, and someone not familiar with this discussion we've been having might think, "Huh. Marilyn sex tape in the news. What's up with that?" Ideally, we'd want anyone with a similar question to turn to Wikipedia first and be rewarded by concise, correct information, in this case indicating the strong probability that the tape's a fake, despite the credulous regurgitation of a report sourced to one single witness, and one who has a strong personal and economic stake in people paying attention such claims. Ford MF (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but there was an article just published a day or two ago by Jim Popkin of NBC news that digs a little further into this story. In case there were any lingering doubts about the motives or character of the hoaxster involved, this should dispel them. [29] Teleomatic (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Good job. Ford MF (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Jewish

Shes jewish by race or religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.226.157 (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says:

Nominally raised as a Christian, she converted to Judaism before marrying Miller.

So she was no ethnic Jew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.198.72 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think she went back to being Christian after she left Miller.--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. Encyclopedia Brittanica refers to her by that term, as does the wiki article on "cultural icons", not to mention the New York Times (frequently). Ford MF (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 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? -- 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. 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? 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. :-)Crcam (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe wine

Do you think there should be a section about the Marilyn Monroe wine and other products?--Star-in-law (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No. -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Marilyn lovers

Should there be a section about her lovers?--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. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Porn film tittle-tattle

I was away from this article, such stuff as 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 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. -- 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 April 14, 2008 and Reuters 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 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?--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 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, here. -- 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. 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.--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. Ford MF (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.) -- 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?--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 foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/monroe.htm for it. Again, this says nothing. So, I've just now clicked the link from it to 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 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 Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that User:Star-in-law is currently indisposed, being the latest incarnation of banned user Octavian history/Persian history, etc. [30]. 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 porn peddler memorabilia collector, I wouldn't fill his head with ideas about what stunts to pull next. 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." -- 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!) 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. -- 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. 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 :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ae2578277 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

===Pornographic film claims===

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).

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. 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. 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.

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. Ford MF (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? -- 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ae2578277 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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. 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. 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. FBI documents show 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.

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. Ford MF (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! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ae2578277 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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. Teleomatic (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote by Marilyn Monroe: “If you’re gonna be two-faced at least make one of them pretty.” – Marilyn Monroe Quotes More Here: http://iambored.pro/marilyn-monroe-quotes/